Below is today’s column in USA Today (the print version is a bit shorter). The column looks at the effort of President Barack Obama and his congressional allies to get citizens to give up privacy as they did protections of the free press, due process, and international legal principles on earlier scandals. It is truly the final measure of devotion demanded in what has become a virtual cult of personality.
Over the course of five years, President Obama has demanded much from his supporters from promising not to prosecute officials for torture to ordering warrantless surveillance to the quashing of dozens of public interest lawsuits seeking judicial review of his policies to the recent attack on the free press. He even claimed, under his “Kill List” policy , the right to kill any U.S. citizen that he believes to be a threat to the United States. Yet, most Democrats stuck with Obama. Now, however, Obama is demanding the final measure of devotion — he is asking supporters to abandon privacy principles in a move that will fundamentally alter our society. Indeed, he and congressional allies are trying to convince Americans that they can free themselves of fear by simply redefining privacy in a new and surveillance friendly image.
At issue are massive surveillance programs through which the administration has seized data on every call made by every citizen. At the same time, data on millions of emails are being stored showing addresses, subject lines, and attachments. The effort allows citizens to be tracked in their associations and communications. In other words, total transparency of citizens in a new fishbowl society. In response to the outcry last week, Obama and others assured citizens that they have nothing to fear from the government collecting their calls and data. It was like a scene out of the movie The Matrix with politicians trying to convince people to give up their fears and learn to love living in the artificial environment created for them. Of course, as with the prior notions of the free press and the unilateral use of lethal force, people have to surrender prior notions of privacy. Obama explained these are just modest intrusions in the new concept of government-approved privacy. He insisted that so long as the government did not read your emails or listen to your calls, there is no danger to privacy. Likewise, Sen. Lindsay Graham scoffed at the notion of any concern over privacy so long as you don’t call a terrorist.
It is true that the Supreme Court in 1979 ruled that there is less protection afforded to phone numbers, which can be acquired under “pen registers.” Yet, even accepting that ill-conceived decision in Smith v. Maryland, the Court was addressing government seizure of numbers to individuals who become material to investigations. The government previously used “national security letters” to get such information. What the Obama administration has done is effectively issue a national security letter for every citizens in America. Recently, the Obama administration admitted to putting reporters under surveillance and seizing such information in what is viewed by many as an extreme attack on the principles of the free press. Many citizens remained quiet as the administration called reporters potential criminals for speaking with sources in the administration. Then, they learned the government was gathering the same information from them and all other citizens.
The new privacy model would protect only the content of your emails and calls — unless the government wants to read them. Before we are lulled back to sleep by our leaders, it is worth noting what you are about to give up.
The government has been secretly collecting all of your contacts from your intimate friends to political associations to doctors to product suppliers. Thus, if you are a government employee seeking information on being a whistleblower, your effort to reach lawyers or whistleblower groups will be seized.
Consider who you have called or emailed in the last month. The government can learn a great deal about you from just the people you call and subjects of your emails. Your “metadata” can reveal peculiar tastes and associations that you may consider hidden from all but your closest friends – and now a few thousand government monitors. The government will now know not only who you are calling but how long you are speaking, how often you call people or groups, where you call from, and even attachments like photos that you send. Ironically, the actual content of your calls or emails are usually not needed to determine the reason and subject of such communications. When you call an abortion clinic repeatedly or a medical marijuana resource line, the likely purpose of the call is self-evident. For citizens with unpopular political or religious views, repeated calls or emails to certain churches or groups indicate an obvious interest. From intimate affairs to political associations, the purpose of most communications are self-evident, particularly when they are placed within a mosaic of all of your contacts and calls.
In his press conference, Obama repeated the siren call of all authoritarian figures throughout history: while these powers are great, our motives are benign. So there you have it. The government is promising to better protect you if you just surrender this last measure of privacy. Perhaps it is time. After all, it was Benjamin Franklin who warned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
JUNE 10, 2013
nick: I assume, virtually everyone knows that if the govt. has info that it WILL be abused, not CAN..it Will be.
I do not know that. Nor do I believe in any absolutist claim from anybody, it isn’t just you. Claiming this is so is a call for anarchy and no government at all; you are saying under no circumstances whatsoever can any government official be trusted with personal information. How are courts supposed to do their job? How are national defense agencies supposed to do theirs?
Is the same thing true for Private Investigators? Are they absolutely going to abuse any and all personal information they become privy to?
Is the same thing true for Attorneys? Are they absolutely going to abuse any and all personal information they become privy to?
Is the same thing true for Medical Doctors and Nurses? Are they absolutely going to abuse any and all personal information they become privy to?
If it isn’t, you will have to explain what makes a government agent inherently less trustworthy than a PI, attorney, or medical doctor. In fact, don’t bother, because no explanation will convince me.
There is a point that needs to be made. The other gumshoe, junctionshamus can also confirm this in case I’m scolded for being boastful or out of my assigned topics of “sports and movies.” I assume, virtually everyone knows that if the govt. has info that it WILL be abused, not CAN..it Will be. Remember that sleazy fat political operative for the Clintons who got FBI files on Republicans and then just sort of vanished when discovered. Well, the Clintons were Arkansas hillbillies. We are now dealing w/ the Chicago Machine. Staying w/ sports, it’s a high school baseball team vs. the Yankees. I’ll again point out what I did a couple weeks ago, Plouffe and his moustacheo buddy are no where to be seen. They should be the point men in handling these crisis.
Here’s what some, maybe many people don’t know. It’s not just the govt. that knows this info, it’s also PI’s, law firms, banks, major corporations, etc. Any good PI has many sources. Some are friends who you just buy lunch/dinner once in awhile and maybe a nice bottle of scotch for Christmas. Others it’s strictly biz. You want info, you pay. I never had sources in the NSA or CIA. I did know a PI who had a CIA source that I had him tap for me once. I did have sources in virtually every other Fed law enforcement agency. Sometimes they just gave you w/ a phone call info that’s public but takes a f@ckn’ month to get through the bureaucracy. Other times info that’s not public. One of the best sources I had was w/ the SSA. Do you have any idea how much info they have. Unfortunately, she decided to have babies and “stay home and bake cookies.” She turned me on to another source but this woman was not smart and reckless, so for her sake I used her infrequently. Of course I. like all PI’s have local and state law enforcement sources. I had phone company sources for landline and cellular. I had medical record sources @ hospitals..never in the med records dept, but in other depts. that had access to med records.
As Daniel Ellsburg said, this is bigger than any other scandal. My hope is this very likeable president doesn’t charm people w/ his despicable comment that this is just “hype.” I would bet my entire 401k, even money, there are both political operatives. PI’s, Corporations, etc. who have sources feeding them this info. So when Lindsey “Gomer Pyle” , w/ his Floyd the barber haircut, says “unless you’re talking to a terrorist you have nothing to worry about”, tell him to go f@ck himself.
leejcarol: the man, this administration has brought back the economy, in spite of GOP obstruction and refusal to pass any jobs bill
Then why do you think Obama had anything to do with it? I do not give him credit for that, I give credit to natural economic cycles and the people’s desire to work and create value. This is the slowest economic recovery in history, precisely because the government has refused to do anything to help.
There is no credit due here, there is no grand plan for the economy that Obama has implemented despite Republican obstructionism. There is simply the fact that the economy doesn’t crash forever, that bubbles pop, the insider 1% steals all the money from the duped 99%, and because 75% or more of people are still working and creating value, the economic wounds scar over, the trauma fades, and things start to look normal again.
Yeah, I voted for Obama too, I donated a large amount to his campaign, I stood in line for hours to vote for him in the primary and the general. So I remember quite clearly his campaign promises. Wake up, the man is a liar, he has voluntarily done the opposite of more of his campaign promises than any candidate I have ever seen.
Tony you seem to forget the stimulus and there auto bailout without which we would not be where we are or the auto industry back and poised to hire thousands within the next few mths (according to news show this am)
Be mad at him, I am but to throw out any good that he has done is silliness. Not all people are all bad or all good and that includes the president.
The Patriot Act evidently gave the right to do all this. From all account so far (that I have heard) it is legal and the (secret) court gave its permission.
Did Prof. make the same concerns known when Bush started this (I am asking, I don’t know)?
Cantor said this morning on an am show that he does not know if this is ore then Bush did.
It is very worrisome. The problem is when senators, etc (as well as folk who have worked for NSA) tell us that this program has thwarted sme terrorist activity. It is the embodiment of the Franklin quote about giving up security for safety. It has also been since Bush a win for the terrorists.
As to Obama and personality cult. the man, this administration has brought back the economy, in spite of GOP obstruction and refusal to pass any jobs bill (stock market, housing, auto industry as well as end Iraq war and more) Unfortunately those who hate this president conveniently ignore any good that has come from this President and paint him with only their brush of disapproval and worse.
(That being said I voted for him (no surprise there) and rang doorbells, signed petitions etc to help gte him elected. Although he has done some good things I am disappointed with him (and call the WH a lot to tell them so) but that does not mean I ignore the good things out of this administration because of the bad, and yes it does seem like the 4th term of Bush at this point.)
There are those in our community’s with the Skills, Resources and Legal talent to protect, defend and secure the rights of E. Snowden. The People can rally all they want but the real test in this case is who will insure his rights and safety from the Government. If funds are not raised and resources found the Government will attack him with full force and then we are all done for. If we the people do not see some immediate protection legally and financially for Mr Snowden from the best on the left all that is left is for us to cower in our homes accept tyranny to keep our jobs and what is left of our simple lives.
Bradley Manning did this and look how the public treated him all these cases need to be bundled and revealed for what they are. The Left and the Right agree on more of these issues than we disagree. If there is ever to be a majority against what the Government is doing now is the time for those with knowledge of law to act as one with the power of reason to protect what’s left of Freedom in America,
Worse than Anything i really feel used by the Democrats and the President.
Getting warmer…
Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America
Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an ‘executive coup’ against the US constitution
by Daniel Ellsberg
Monday 10 June 2013 06.30 ED
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/edward-snowden-united-stasi-america
In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden’s release of NSA material – and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago. Snowden’s whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back a key part of what has amounted to an “executive coup” against the US constitution.
Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought over 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended.
The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that unconstitutionally sweeping warrant is from a secret court, shielded from effective oversight, almost totally deferential to executive requests. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: “It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp.”
For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads –they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor. They are also black holes for information that the public needs to know.
The fact that congressional leaders were “briefed” on this and went along with it, without any open debate, hearings, staff analysis, or any real chance for effective dissent, only shows how broken the system of checks and balances is in this country.
Obviously, the United States is not now a police state. But given the extent of this invasion of people’s privacy, we do have the full electronic and legislative infrastructure of such a state. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – or, more likely, if we suffered one more attack on the scale of 9/11, I fear for our democracy. These powers are extremely dangerous.
There are legitimate reasons for secrecy, and specifically for secrecy about communications intelligence. That’s why Bradley Mannning and I – both of whom had access to such intelligence with clearances higher than top-secret – chose not to disclose any information with that classification. And it is why Edward Snowden has committed himself to withhold publication of most of what he might have revealed.
But what is not legitimate is to use a secrecy system to hide programs that are blatantly unconstitutional in their breadth and potential abuse. Neither the president nor Congress as a whole may by themselves revoke the fourth amendment – and that’s why what Snowden has revealed so far was secret from the American people.
In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms:
“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
The dangerous prospect of which he warned was that America’s intelligence gathering capability – which is today beyond any comparison with what existed in his pre-digital era – “at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left.”
That has now happened. That is what Snowden has exposed, with official, secret documents. The NSA, FBI and CIA have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers over our own citizens that the Stasi – the secret police in the former “democratic republic” of East Germany – could scarcely have dreamed of. Snowden reveals that the so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.
So we have fallen into Senator Church’s abyss. The questions now are whether he was right or wrong that there is no return from it, and whether that means that effective democracy will become impossible. A week ago, I would have found it hard to argue with pessimistic answers to those conclusions.
But with Edward Snowden having put his life on the line to get this information out, quite possibly inspiring others with similar knowledge, conscience and patriotism to show comparable civil courage – in the public, in Congress, in the executive branch itself – I see the unexpected possibility of a way up and out of the abyss.
Pressure by an informed public on Congress to form a select committee to investigate the revelations by Snowden and, I hope, others to come might lead us to bring NSA and the rest of the intelligence community under real supervision and restraint and restore the protections of the bill of rights.
Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA’s surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans’ and foreign citizens’ privacy does not contribute to our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we’re trying to protect.
Reblogged this on danmillerinpanama and commented:
This is my second re-blog today of an excellent article by Jonathan Turley.
Mr. Turley articulates something I have thought, increasingly, since President Obama’s first term. In the next to last paragraph, he says,
The powers are indeed great, but the benign nature of the associated motives is far from obvious – to the point of lacking credibility. As the Obama Administration, and the career civil “servants” working under it, incrementally take away our freedoms at some point – and we may well have reached it – the sacrifice of freedom in favor of “security” gets to be over the top.
One can legitimately question whose security is being protected and even enhanced. Is it that of the average citizen, or is it that of governmental entities? Their “freedoms” to do pretty much as they please – with inadequate supervision (at best) and in camera by allegedly neutral parties – have been enhanced commensurately.
Clearly, some level of covert intelligence collection is necessary; the nation does have dangerous enemies but, as shown in recent years, intelligence collection about them has been inept and apparently filtered prior use in service of political, rather than national, interests. Spying on others not national enemies, to serve the political interests of the party in power, has been all encompassing. If the Government had shown, successfully, that it can be trusted reasonably, the recent disclosures would generally have gone unnoticed. It has shown the contrary and the disclosures have been widely noticed.
Now, the question is, “where do we go from here?” Up, down or sideways? Memories are short and there are always useful diversions. Will we focus adequately this time on what is truly in the national interest, or allow our attention to be diverted to more attractive nuisances?
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
We gave up our privacy as soon as we bent over for the Patriot Act.
The patriot Act as amended needs to be repealed before any Executive branch can be reined in.
Mr. Holmes,
Thank you for your perspective.
However, my comment was meant for someone who means a great deal to me, someone whom I’ve grown to admire.
Love is more beautiful when it sets people free, preferably in a more beautiful place, instead of tying them down to personal and selfish needs.
Carry on.
“After all, it was Benjamin Franklin who warned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.””
….and will lose both.
…and it ain’t over, yet. Not even close. Unless Greenwald is sitting on it, for now…
http://youtu.be/BUmNud_3lcQ
Gene, I agree but I still detest Nixon more, just because of the way he put our country through an impeachment when there were so many other serious problems on the table. I remember the day he resigned. I was working @ the Roosevelt Hotel in Wildwood, NJ. The chef was a Swedish, sweet, quiet man who had worked @ the UN. He was in his late 70’s and had to work to support his wife who had ALS. We employees were in the lobby drinking beer and watching the tv. Henry asked for a beer. We had never seen him drink. He watched intently, sipping his beer. When Nixon announced his resignation the very proper Henry said, “Goodbye you fucking bastard!” You have to hear a Swedish accent. Henry was a very interesting man. He was very thin, but ate very small meals 6-7 times a day. One or his specialties was rarebit, which required beer. He only needed 2 bottles and would give me the rest.
Apart from the audacity of collecting everyone’s meta data, Sling’s link shows HOW this data can be used. The implications are amazing.
http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/
Why does Obama need a few old liberal democrats when he has McCain, Chambliss and Graham? When he kept Gates on it was obvious that he was continuing Bush’s second term.
nick,
That is a statement we can agree upon 100% but I would go further than to call it a scandal. It’s an outright crime committed by the Obama and Bush Administrations on a scale that Nixon could have only dreamed of.
Bravo Professor Turley. With the loss of privacy and transparency we risk becoming a nation of men and not laws. How easily we give up our constitutional protections when we let fear rule our lives.
itchinBayDog: “In fourth grade I lost the spulling”
I stopped reading your comment on seeing ‘spulling’ 🙂