Constitutional Law, Criminal law, International, Military, Politics, Society

Trust Us, We’re The Government: The Administration Multiplies Claim of “One Plot” To “Dozens” Foiled By The Warrantless Surveillance Programs

220px-Keith_B._Alexander_official_portraitIt appears that, as opposition grows to the surveillance programs, the Administration is increasing the claimed successes under the programs. The wonderful thing about secret massive databanks is that its use is . . . well . . . secret. After the surveillance programs involving all calls from citizens and hundreds of millions of emails were disclosed, congressional allies came forward to claim that “a possible plot” was foiled by the program. Of course, they could not tell anyone about the plot even after other members of the Senate said that they doubted that claim. National Security Agency director Army Gen. Keith Alexander, however, has decided that just one potential plot is not enough. So he testified this week that “dozens” of potential plots have been foiled in an effort to get citizens to redefine privacy in a more surveillance friendly image.

For many civil libertarians, the Administration and Congress will have to forgive the feeling that this is like asking “who are you going to believe a court or the people who were secretly spying on you?” What makes this particularly fascinating is the small problem of the past false testimony on surveillance given by intelligence officials in congressional hearings — testimony known to be false by the Senators in attendance. This is also the same Administration that only in February blocked a major effort to seek judicial review dismissed in the Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote because any confirmation of such programs would endanger American lives.

Yet, now we are told to simply accept on faith that dozens of “potential” plots were stopped. Putting aside the past exaggeration of intelligence claims, this testimony (and the hearing itself) seemed designed to (as with the prior torture program under Bush) to get the public to forget about privacy and constitutional protections by keeping fear alive.

Much like Putin’s defense of the American surveillance programs, Alexander insisted that this is the new normal. Alexander repeated the position of the White House that “We do not see a tradeoff between security and liberty. We are trying to protect Americans.” That is a fascinating — and chilling — statement. It suggests that there is no balancing needed if you “are trying to protect Americans.” Of course, everything the government does in the area (as with criminal non-terrorism cases) is to protect the public.

Moreover, despite Obama’s suggestion that there is a balancing, there is no evidence of it. All of the steps like reading content of emails referenced by Obama is not some concession made by his Administration: it is a power that he does not possess. Those concessions are in fact prohibitions. Obama went all the way up to (in my view, over) the line of maximum power. It is like saying to a police officer that you balanced you desire to get to your location by speeding but not moving into approaching traffic. That really is no more a concession for a driver than it is to say that you are not reading mail without a warrant for a president.

Now back to Alexander. In a repeat of what occurred after the disclosure of the torture program, the Democratic senators structured the hearing to avoid the broad questions of legality and privacy. Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski reminded everyone that they would not address such questions being discussed “in the news.” Instead, they wanted the focus to be on the benefits of the massive surveillance system and of course attacking Snowden.

Yet, no one asked Alexander what constitutes a “potential” plot. We have not seen dozens of prosecutions. What happened to them? Likewise, no one asked for details on the plots. After all, he just said the programs uncovered the plots and presumably the plotters know that they were found out. So why not lay the facts bare for the American public?

Then there is the assumed proposition that if “a plot” or “dozens of plots” were uncovered, it would excuse a massive surveillance of the population and the creation of a fishbowl society.

By the way, various lawyers and intelligence experts with direct knowledge of two intercepted terrorist plots have said that they do not believe the program played a significant role. The two cases cited by allies of the White House involve the arrests and convictions of would-be New York subway bomber Najibullah Zazi in 2009 and David Headley who received a 35-year prison sentence for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. However, court documents in the US and UK show an array of more important sources, including informants and conventional surveillance.

However, I am still struck by the spectacle of these hearings after the disclosure of false testimony by people like James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. Clapper has recently said that his testimony was “the least untrue” statement that he could make. Yet, of course that would still make it an untrue statement — which most people call a lie and lawyers call perjury. Indeed, when Roger Clemens was prosecuted for untrue statements before Congress, he was not told of the option to tell the least untrue statement on steroid use.

Yet, it is important to note that Senators have come forward to admit that they knew of the massive surveillance program. So, when Clapper was given untrue testimony, these Senators sat quietly and allowed the public to be lied to. They are now holding hearings that assure the public that it can trust them that these programs have foiled “dozens” of plots. It is asking rather a lot from any citizen, but it may be the last measure of devotion demanded by this President.

88 thoughts on “Trust Us, We’re The Government: The Administration Multiplies Claim of “One Plot” To “Dozens” Foiled By The Warrantless Surveillance Programs”

  1. Now the leaders of House Intelligence Committee are saying Snowden is simply lying . . . and a traitor.

    The NSA leaker is lying about both his access to information and the scope of the secret surveillance programs he uncovered, the heads of the House Intelligence Committee charged Thursday.

    Emerging from a hearing with NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), the senior Democrat on the panel, said Edward Snowden simply wasn’t in the position to access the content of the communications gathered under National Security Agency programs, as he’s claimed.

    “He was lying,” Rogers said. “He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he’s even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It’s impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do.”

    “He’s done tremendous damage to the country where he was born and raised and educated,” Ruppersberger said.

    Asked how much additional information — including other Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act verdicts — Snowden has in his possession, Rogers said, “No one really knows the answer to that today. I think we will know the answer to that shortly.”

    That last quoted sentence?

    Is what puckering sounds like.

    But this guy who stepped forward at great personal expense to reveal that the government is violating the 4th Amendment as if the Constitution was merely a suggestion is a liar and a traitor and the guys who ordered and committed torture are, what? Heroes deserving of a pass on prosecution instead of treasonous war criminals?

    If I didn’t have friends in the D.C, area I care about, I’d swear that that the best thing for this country might be for a moderately sized rock from space to fall right square on top of Congress while it was in full session.

  2. How many of these so called plots were the result of an FBI sting operation?

  3. So..if members of congress, constitutional officers of the government as authorized by the founding fathers are aware that a testifier is testilying while under oath, and do nothing, could they be prosecuted for suborning perjury ?

    Where are those House Managers who wanted to impeach Clinton for quibbling on what the meaning of “is” is ?

  4. It does not appear that Congress will be defending the Constitution nor applying the rule of law. I encourage you to support the ACLU.

  5. Senate gave their imprimatur to perjury. They have done it many times, although in this case, they seem to have been in on it, when the oil companies execs testified, when Ollie North et al testified and so on. This is a long standing tradition.

  6. Excerpt from “The Snowden Principle” by John Cusack

    At the heart of Edward Snowden’s decision to expose the NSA’s massive phone and Internet spying programs was a fundamental belief in the people’s right-to-know. “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them,” he said in an interview with the Guardian.

    From the State’s point of view, he’s committed a crime. From his point of view, and the view of many others, he has sacrificed for the greater good because he knows people have the right to know what the government is doing in their name. And legal, or not, he saw what the government was doing as a crime against the people and our rights.

    For the sake of argument — This should be called The Snowden Principle.

    When The Snowden Principle is invoked and revelations of this magnitude are revealed; it is always met with predictable establishment blowback from the red and blue elites of state power. Those in charge are prone to hysteria and engage in character assassination, as are many in the establishment press that have been co-opted by government access . When The Snowden Principle is evoked the fix is always in and instead of looking at the wrongdoing exposed, they parrot the government position no matter what the facts

    The Snowden Principle just cannot be tolerated…

    Even mental illness is pondered as a possible reason that these pariahs would insist on the public’s right to know at the highest personal costs to their lives and the destruction of their good names. The public’s right to know—This is the treason. The utter corruption, the crime.

    But as law professor Jonathan Turley reminds us, a lie told by everyone is not the truth. “The Republican and Democratic parties have achieved a bipartisan purpose in uniting against the public’s need to know about massive surveillance programs and the need to redefine privacy in a more surveillance friendly image,” he wrote recently.

    We can watch as The Snowden Principle is predictably followed in the reaction from many of the fourth estate – who serve at the pleasure of the king.

  8. Thank you for your digging into this important news story and sticking with it. I see that for the most part the news media has turned this off and the closest they are coming to it now is to discuss the girlfriend that Snowden left behind. Maybe it will take a recorded conversation of a news reporter (preferably not Fox as they aren’t considered “news”) to get the news media back on track.

    So I have little hope much will come from this. The news media and the public seem far more interested in movie stars than their Constitutional rights.

  9. Administration: “Dozens of potential plots were revealed”
    Charlatan: “You have unlimited earning potential in selling widgets”

    I guess they believe they have to destroy the constitution in order to save it.

  10. I am … Really, really trying to give some benefit of doubt…. But my reasoning mind tell me not to trust a word they say….

  11. It is almost interesting to note that Ron Weyden asked these direct questions, giving Clapper advance notice, and a chance to correct them post hoc, almost in anticipation of a set up. Weyden likely knew the correct answers, and asked them in a way giving Clapper the best chance to exonerate himself. But Clapper went down the path that he most incriminated himself.
    Clapper, et al, NEEDS to be prosecuted for lying to Congress, a felony I understand.

  12. JT, keep up the good work on this. Don’t let the apparatchiks try to blind us with science, actually junk science.

    The administration is so deep in sht, it is trying to shovel its way out and in the process causing more sht to cave in on themselves.

    Their defenses have been hypocritical, contradictory, outright admitted falsehoods, and have the smell of a cornered animal.

    This scandal needs to go to the next level. I can only hope a good coalition of federal legislators spearhead this into an investigation and indictments on the coverups. And hopefully to be followed by court decisions and statutory change.

  13. The greatest threat to America and Americans are organizations like the NSA and CIA that pretend to protect us from all sorts of dangers by invading our lives. That it is all done in secret allows them to make any number of claims about their successes without any means to verify if they are true.

  14. ” Clapper has recently said that his testimony was “the least untrue” statement that he could make”

    Clapper makes it sound as though he lied because he had no alternative under difficult circumstance.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The fact is that he was given the questions prior to the day of his testimony specifically to give him time to prepare an answer.

    There is a clear, long established and respected paradigm for public officials who are asked question about classified material.

    In the past we have seen public officials clearly state that the subject is classified and offer to discuss the material further in closed session under appropriate security conditions.

    Clapper chose to lie in front of congress and the American people. He could have given the right answer in the right way. Instead he did his best to mislead the nation.

    Why would anyone trust Clapper on any subject?

    The question turns to the elected officials who listened passively to Clappers sworn, false testimony. Did they violate their sworn oath to protect the constitution. When they failed to challenge Clapper’s lies on matters that go to the very essence of the constitution, did they violate the most basic principles of their office?

    Who is the greater threat to our constitution and the open, democratic society it protects, Clapper, Feinstein, or Snowden?

    Perhaps Clapper could explain the concept of “least untrue statement” to Martha Stewart. I am sure she would like some tips on where she went wrong.

  15. Gene: That is why I never attempt to move a bookcase without strapping on a gun.

  16. Here is lengthy, informative piece on The General in charge of all this:

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/all/

    “I am concerned that this is going to break a threshold where the private sector can no longer handle it and the government is going to have to step in.”

    …

    “In 2007, the then secretary of the Air Force pledged to “dominate cyberspace” just as “today, we dominate air and space.” And Alexander’s Army warned, “It is in cyberspace that we must use our strategic vision to dominate the information environment”

    …

    Domination. Not cohabitation. Not information sharing. Rather, it’s the need not just to defeat invented enemies, but to break the will of real people.

    Cyberspace, the General will find, cannot be dominated. We can protect our vital resources without scaring people half to death, and watching every single bloody thing they say.

    For those still quaintly enrolled in the “metadata only” argument, the General’s actions suggest other, far more nefarious curricula. I think STUXNET, for example, was an illegal attack.

    And there remains so much we do not know.

  17. Richard Barrett, coordinator of the United Nations al Qaeda/Taliban Monitoring Team, says the chance of dying in a terrorist attack in the United States from 2007 to 2011 is one in twenty million. Let me repeat that: 1 in 20 million

    According to the National Safety Council, here is a list of the odds of death from causes other than a terrorist attack:

    http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Injury_Facts_43.pdf

  18. Even if true, are the expense of said program and the sacrifice of fundamental civil rights an appropriate cost for preventing twenty-four crimes?

    Keep in mind that your own furniture is as likely to kill you as terrorism.

    I anxiously await the government’s next phase: removal of your remaining rights in name of the War on Loveseats.

    It’ll only cost a few billion dollars a year according to private contractor estimates and they expect no one to mind sitting on the floor.

  19. Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Comments are closed.