Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with, Snowden told Glenn Greenwald in a televised interview. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant, to a Federal judge, to even the President . . . if I had a personal e-mail.
Both men cannot be correct.
President Obama was concerned enough about how you and the rest of the country (and the world) may be may be leaning on this volatile issue to address it at a news conference, and to lay out four steps he is taking to increase the confidence of the American people in these [NSA surveillance] programs. The first two steps are to work with Congress to (1) reform Section 215 of the Patriot Act, concerning the scooping up of all telephones records, and (2) to create some legal representation in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — in appropriate cases — for those with civil liberties concerns. Currently, only the federal government is represented in these secret court proceedings.
How much can confidence really be raised when it is predicated on the ability of Obama and Congress to work together?
But even should they manage to cooperate, lets not pretend that the goal of such an endeavor would be to relinquish a quark of power or authority. The president offered excellent buzz words like greater oversight, greater transparency, but has every intention of continuing to obtain every Americans phone records and emails. And to continue a secret court making secret and sweeping decisions.
Obamas third step, making public the heretofore secret legal rationale that so twists Section 215 of the Patriot Act as to permit the governments metadata collection program, is both meaningful and requires no one elses approval. And is long overdue.
But another decision may be made tomorrow . . . in secret.
The fourth announced step is classic Washington — almost as good as promising to cut spending by slashing waste, fraud and abuse. Mr. Obama is going to form a high level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies.
But why a new group? What about the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the group charged with ensuring that the executive branch balances privacy and civil liberties needs with its national security efforts? The group the president never even met with until after Ed Snowden blew his skirling whistle.
I dont think Mr. Snowden was a patriot, Obama said Friday in response to reporters. As I said in my opening remarks, I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference — and I think the American peoples preference — would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws; a thoughtful, fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place, because I never made claims that all the surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws had been put in place somehow didnt require, potentially, some additional reforms. Thats exactly what I called for.
Well, maybe he mumbled something to that effect to a dial tone. The NSA might have been listening.
If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, he went on, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistle-blower protection to the intelligence community for the first time.
Would Obamas executive order have protected Snowden? Is this all really a big misunderstanding? Shouldnt the president just meet with Snowden over a beer near the Moscow airport?
Were they to lack for small talk, Obama could explain how that executive order works.
Much of the chatter amongst the chat show set has been devoted to the question of Snowdens possible heroism or villainy. Not enough has been directed to Obamas similar standing, which seems to have all the ontological constancy of Schrödingers Cat.
And, of all the second-guessing of Snowdens character as exhibited by the choices he made, not mentioned often enough has been the near blackout of media coverage in the Bradley Manning case — the most powerful context for any person seeking to tell the truth about an illegal and possibly unconstitutional program.
Were Snowden motivated by fame, he could certainly have done more to generate it and bask in it. If money had mattered most, he could have earned big bucks by trading information to hostile countries. Had he cared only about the good life and not right-and-wrong or the future of the country, he would have looked the other way. Instead, Snowden took great personal risk to disclose top-secret information in a somewhat careful manner.
Mr. Obamas motivations dont seem nearly so pure. [further reading]