{"id":22220,"date":"2013-10-29T14:26:58","date_gmt":"2013-10-29T22:26:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=22220"},"modified":"2013-10-29T14:26:58","modified_gmt":"2013-10-29T22:26:58","slug":"the-surveillance-state-is-a-gigantic-beast-that-values-self-preservation-not-national-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2013\/10\/29\/the-surveillance-state-is-a-gigantic-beast-that-values-self-preservation-not-national-security\/","title":{"rendered":"The Surveillance State Is ‘A Gigantic Beast’ That Values Self-Preservation, Not National Security"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"gty_keith_alexander_jef_130612_wg\"<\/p>\n

Jay Stanley over at the ACLU blog<\/a> posts an illustrative table that gets to the heart of the NSA controversies these days. As he makes note, when defenders of the NSA’s surveillance state are confronted with allegations of unlawfulness, overreach, or scandal as a result of Edward Snowden’s leaks, they like to emphasize their deep commitment to “keeping the country safe.”<\/p>\n

Critics of the NSA programs, on the other hand, don’t buy it. We think the NSA isn’t so much looking out for the country as it is looking out for itself. And we praise Edward Snowden as a hero, instead of a maligning him as a traitor.<\/p>\n

Stanley lays out the two paradigms of belief:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Top priority: protecting the nation.\u00a0<\/b>Our national security establishment\u2014from the president to the heads of the three-letter agencies to the mid-level officials who make the gears turn\u2014are focused on nothing but trying to protect the nation from harm. While occasional abuses by individual \u201cbad apples\u201d may take place, overall these institutions respect the Constitution and the rule of law and are just doing what they must to protect the nation.<\/li>\n
  2. Top priority: protecting themselves.\u00a0<\/b>Our national security establishment, while full of well-intentioned people trying their best to protect the nation, should primarily be understood as a giant bureaucratic entity governed by a dynamic that is bigger than the sum of these parts, and as primarily concerned with expanding its own powers and domain and defending its reputation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Below is the table, which seems to prove paradigm 2 is correct. As Stanley puts it:<\/p>\n

    The evidence seems clear: national security is the justification for our security establishment\u2019s existence and powers, but self-preservation, defense of prerogatives and reputation, and expansion of powers is truly mission number one. In fact, as I\u00a0argued recently<\/a>, the most useful way to think about the national security state is as a gigantic beast with impulses that need to be carefully controlled. Na\u00efve understandings of our security agencies will lead to inadequate checks and balances. Reforms aimed at reining in these out-of-control agencies must be predicated on a sophisticated understanding of their true character.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Click continue to see the table…<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Situation<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Paradigm: protecting the nation as #1 goal<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Paradigm: protecting themselves as <\/strong>#1 goal<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    An NSA whistleblower, Thomas Drake, brings allegations of agency corruption and malfeasance to public attention, without releasing any classified information.<\/td>\nThe president and NSA acknowledge and respond to the allegations, take an honest look at them and whether there are improvements to be made in American security and protecting the American way of life.<\/td>\nThe whistleblower\u2019s home is raided<\/a> by the FBI and the government scours his home and the law books searching for a crime with which to charge him. The DOJ pursues serious charges against him and he undergoes a grueling and expensive ordeal fighting the charges, which after several years are revealed to be bogus and are mostly dropped.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Employees of intelligence agencies engage in torture in clear violation of U.S. and international law, doing immeasurable damage to the nation\u2019s image abroad and the rule of law.<\/td>\nSaying it is a duty to enforce the rule of law and uphold the nation\u2019s reputation for human rights, the government appoints an independent counsel to determine the precise nature and scope of wrongdoing. Charges are filed and those found to have violated the law are prosecuted. Top officials in the agencies do everything they can to help serve justice.<\/td>\nThe president says we must \u201clook forward” not “backwards<\/a>,” and declines<\/a> to name an independent counsel to investigate the officials responsible for these policies. When individual victims of these abuses file suit, the government seeks to have the suits thrown<\/a> out<\/a> under a dramatically expansive reading of the \u201cstate secrets\u201d privilege.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    The New York Times in 2006 reveals the existence of a massive warrantless NSA wiretapping program.<\/td>\nThe government releases its internal legal opinions to explain why it thought the program was legal, seeks to convince Americans through public defense in court that the program is lawful and necessary, and respects the results of those lawsuits. Possible legal violations are investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted.<\/td>\nThe government releases little to no public explanation of the program, and strives to block any litigation by claiming lack of standing <\/a>and the state<\/a> secrets<\/a> privilege. While blocking democratic discussion of these practices, it seeks authority<\/a> from Congress to continue them as well as retroactive immunity<\/a> for the participants.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    At the urging of the executive branch, Congress passes a law, the FISA Amendments Act, allowing very broad surveillance of Americans\u2019 communications. Many Americans believe that this law violates the Constitution.<\/td>\nThe government presents arguments in court as to why it believes the surveillance powers are constitutional, recognizing that our courts play the vital role of interpreting the Constitution in our system of checks and balances.<\/td>\nThe government claims that secrecy requirements<\/a> prevent the courts from even hearing arguments on whether or not the surveillance is constitutional.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Unknown officials repeatedly leak classified information that puts the government in a positive light.<\/td>\nOut of respect for the integrity of the classification system, the government does not treat leaks that make the government look good any differently from those that make it look bad.<\/td>\nNo investigations are ever launched, or charges filed, concerning leaks <\/a>that make the government look good or advance its political goals.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    A young member of the intelligence community, Edward Snowden, leaks documents revealing the existence of a vast NSA domestic spying operation that has been justified by an extremely aggressive stretch of the law, triggering a prolonged national debate over these powers.<\/td>\nThe authorities treat Snowden evenhandedly and in accordance with some basic principles of fairness<\/a>.<\/td>\nA furious government goes to extreme lengths to get Mr. Snowden, violating diplomatic norms <\/a>and trampling relations with China<\/a>, Russia<\/a>, Bolivia, and other countries in a fierce pursuit of the whistleblower.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Jay Stanley over at the ACLU blog posts an illustrative table that gets to the heart of the NSA controversies these days. As he makes note, when defenders of the NSA’s surveillance state are confronted with allegations of unlawfulness, overreach, or scandal as a result of Edward Snowden’s leaks, they like to emphasize their deep […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-22220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22220","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22220"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22220\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22221,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22220\/revisions\/22221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22220"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=22220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}