Posted on Jul\u00a05,\u00a02013<\/h4>\n\n<\/p>\nBy Eugene Robinson<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t believe government officials when they say the National Security Agency\u2019s surveillance programs do not invade our privacy. The record suggests that you shouldn\u2019t believe them, either.<\/p>\n
It pains me to sound like some Rand Paul acolyte. I promise I\u2019m not wearing a tinfoil hat or scanning the leaden sky for black helicopters. I just wish our government would start treating us like adults\u2013more important, like participants in a democracy\u2013and stop lying. We can handle the truth.<\/p>\n
The starkest lie came in March at a Senate intelligence committee hearing, when Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper a simple question: \u201cDoes the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?\u201d<\/p>\n
Clapper replied, \u201cNo, sir.\u201d<\/p>\n
As we\u2019ve learned from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden, Clapper\u2019s answer was patently false. The agency collects metadata\u2013essentially, a detailed log\u2013of many and perhaps all of our domestic phone calls. <\/p>\n
Lying to Congress is a serious offense; baseball legend Roger Clemens was tried\u2013and acquitted\u2013on criminal charges for allegedly lying about steroid use at a congressional hearing. The chance that Clapper will face similar peril, however, is approximately zero.<\/p>\n
Following Snowden\u2019s revelations, Clapper said that an honest answer to Wyden\u2019s question would have required him to divulge highly classified secrets, so he gave the \u201cleast untruthful\u201d answer he could come up with. Clapper apparently believes that \u201cleast\u201d is a synonym for \u201cmost.\u201d <\/p>\n
In a recent letter to the intelligence committee, Clapper said he thought Wyden was asking about the content of domestic communications\u2013which the NSA says it does not collect \u201cwittingly,\u201d for what that\u2019s worth\u2013rather than about the metadata. \u201cThus, my response was clearly erroneous,\u201d Clapper wrote, \u201cfor which I apologize.\u201d<\/p>\n
He sounded like the cheating husband, caught in flagrante by his wife, who feigns surprise and says, \u201cWhat mistress? Oh, you mean (BEG ITAL)that(END ITAL) mistress.\u201d<\/p>\n
Clapper\u2019s defenders say Wyden unfairly asked a question that he knew the director could not answer. But Wyden says he sent the question to Clapper\u2019s office a day in advance\u2013and gave him the chance to amend his answer afterward. <\/p>\n
Also untrue is President Obama\u2019s assertion that the NSA surveillance programs are \u201ctransparent.\u201d They are, in fact, completely opaque\u2013or were, until Snowden started leaking the agency\u2019s secrets.<\/p>\n
By what authority does the government collect data on our private communications? We don\u2019t know. More accurately, we\u2019re not permitted to know.<\/p>\n
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to seek warrants \u201crequiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.\u201d<\/p>\n
Seizing records that pertain to an investigation is not the same thing as compiling a comprehensive log of billions of domestic phone calls. How has the law been stretched\u2013I mean, interpreted\u2013to accommodate the NSA\u2019s wish to compile a record of our contacts, associations and movements? The government refuses to tell us.<\/p>\n
We know that permission for this surveillance was granted by one or more judges of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. But the court\u2019s proceedings and rulings are secret. We don\u2019t know what argument the government made in seeking permission to conduct this kind of vacuum-cleaner surveillance. We don\u2019t know what the court\u2019s legal reasoning was in granting the authority. We don\u2019t know whether the court considers other laws so elastic.<\/p>\n
We do know that the court\u2019s secret hearings are not adversarial, meaning that there is no push-back from advocates of civil liberties. And we know that since its inception the court has approved more than 30,000 government requests for surveillance warrants and refused only 11. <\/p>\n
I accept that the administration officials, Justice Department lawyers, federal judges, FBI agents and NSA analysts involved in the phone call surveillance and other programs are acting in good faith. The same is true of members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who are supposed to be providing oversight. But honorable intentions are not enough\u2013especially when we know that much of what these honorable officials have told us is false.<\/p>\n
The biggest lie of all? That the American people don\u2019t even deserve to be told what their laws mean, much less how those laws are being used.<\/p>\n
Eugene Robinson\u2019s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u00a9 2013, Washington Post Writers Group<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.truthdig.com\/images\/eartothegrounduploads\/5970885424_0118bc547c_z-shhh-300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Photo by Guian Bolisay<\/a> (CC-BY-SA)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
By Eugene Robinson<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t believe government officials when they say the National Security Agency\u2019s surveillance programs do not invade our privacy. The record suggests that you shouldn\u2019t believe them, either.<\/p>\n
It pains me to sound like some Rand Paul acolyte. I promise I\u2019m not wearing a tinfoil hat or scanning the leaden sky for black helicopters. I just wish our government would start treating us like adults\u2013more important, like participants in a democracy\u2013and stop lying. We can handle the truth.<\/p>\n
The starkest lie came in March at a Senate intelligence committee hearing, when Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper a simple question: \u201cDoes the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?\u201d<\/p>\n
Clapper replied, \u201cNo, sir.\u201d<\/p>\n
As we\u2019ve learned from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden, Clapper\u2019s answer was patently false. The agency collects metadata\u2013essentially, a detailed log\u2013of many and perhaps all of our domestic phone calls. <\/p>\n
Lying to Congress is a serious offense; baseball legend Roger Clemens was tried\u2013and acquitted\u2013on criminal charges for allegedly lying about steroid use at a congressional hearing. The chance that Clapper will face similar peril, however, is approximately zero.<\/p>\n
Following Snowden\u2019s revelations, Clapper said that an honest answer to Wyden\u2019s question would have required him to divulge highly classified secrets, so he gave the \u201cleast untruthful\u201d answer he could come up with. Clapper apparently believes that \u201cleast\u201d is a synonym for \u201cmost.\u201d <\/p>\n
In a recent letter to the intelligence committee, Clapper said he thought Wyden was asking about the content of domestic communications\u2013which the NSA says it does not collect \u201cwittingly,\u201d for what that\u2019s worth\u2013rather than about the metadata. \u201cThus, my response was clearly erroneous,\u201d Clapper wrote, \u201cfor which I apologize.\u201d<\/p>\n
He sounded like the cheating husband, caught in flagrante by his wife, who feigns surprise and says, \u201cWhat mistress? Oh, you mean (BEG ITAL)that(END ITAL) mistress.\u201d<\/p>\n
Clapper\u2019s defenders say Wyden unfairly asked a question that he knew the director could not answer. But Wyden says he sent the question to Clapper\u2019s office a day in advance\u2013and gave him the chance to amend his answer afterward. <\/p>\n
Also untrue is President Obama\u2019s assertion that the NSA surveillance programs are \u201ctransparent.\u201d They are, in fact, completely opaque\u2013or were, until Snowden started leaking the agency\u2019s secrets.<\/p>\n
By what authority does the government collect data on our private communications? We don\u2019t know. More accurately, we\u2019re not permitted to know.<\/p>\n
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to seek warrants \u201crequiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.\u201d<\/p>\n
Seizing records that pertain to an investigation is not the same thing as compiling a comprehensive log of billions of domestic phone calls. How has the law been stretched\u2013I mean, interpreted\u2013to accommodate the NSA\u2019s wish to compile a record of our contacts, associations and movements? The government refuses to tell us.<\/p>\n
We know that permission for this surveillance was granted by one or more judges of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. But the court\u2019s proceedings and rulings are secret. We don\u2019t know what argument the government made in seeking permission to conduct this kind of vacuum-cleaner surveillance. We don\u2019t know what the court\u2019s legal reasoning was in granting the authority. We don\u2019t know whether the court considers other laws so elastic.<\/p>\n
We do know that the court\u2019s secret hearings are not adversarial, meaning that there is no push-back from advocates of civil liberties. And we know that since its inception the court has approved more than 30,000 government requests for surveillance warrants and refused only 11. <\/p>\n
I accept that the administration officials, Justice Department lawyers, federal judges, FBI agents and NSA analysts involved in the phone call surveillance and other programs are acting in good faith. The same is true of members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, who are supposed to be providing oversight. But honorable intentions are not enough\u2013especially when we know that much of what these honorable officials have told us is false.<\/p>\n
The biggest lie of all? That the American people don\u2019t even deserve to be told what their laws mean, much less how those laws are being used.<\/p>\n
Eugene Robinson\u2019s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.<\/i><\/p>\n
\u00a9 2013, Washington Post Writers Group<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Photo by Guian Bolisay<\/a> (CC-BY-SA)<\/a><\/p>\n <\/span>\n<\/div>\n