In the wake of the current government shutdown, one of the most pressing concerns of the public is whether the shutdown will have any effect on national security. Put simply, at this point, we have no way of truly knowing what the effects of the lapse in federal funding will truly be.
Over the weekend, The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the NSA, on top of collecting Americans’ phone records, has been collecting other information that could detail social connections, travel companions, and locations at certain points of time. It appears that the NSA collected this information through credit agencies, social media, passenger manifests from airlines, insurance agencies, and other public and private sources. The program seems to be either closely linked or a part of the PRISM program leaked by Edward Snowden a few months ago. Continue reading
Earlier this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee announced plans to make changes to PRISM, the NSA surveillance program outed by Edward Snowden a few months back. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) are reportedly drafting the bill to present to Congress as early as next week. Senator Feinstein did make it clear that they expected a fair amount of amendments to be proposed once it is presented. Senator Feinstein also stated that the bill’s aim is to increase public confidence in the NSA program that she already believes to be lawful.
In August of 2013 I had the opportunity to travel to Guantanamo Bay to represent Seton Hall Law’s Center for Policy and Research as an NGO observer at the 9/11 trials. In particular, I was able to watch one of many pretrial hearings in the case of the United States v. Mohammed, in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (AKA al-Baluchi), and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi are named as defendants. The five detainees are accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks that lead to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
About two weeks ago, I promised to outline a new approach to the US’s national security problems in Pakistan as a way to end or reduce the reliance on drone warfare. Here it is, at least in broad outlines: Continue reading
A few days ago I wrote about the Obama administration’s decision to shut down 19 embassies in the Middle East and North Africa for the remainder of the week in response to what officials are calling a serious and credible threat. The State Department has since reaffirmed that some embassies will remain closed until further notice while others will reopen on Monday. We already know that the threat causing the shutdown came from al-Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, but we’re still in the dark in regard to what the threat actually entails. Continue reading
Yesterday, Col. Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over the Bradley Manning case at Fort Meade, acquitted Manning of the charge of aiding the enemy. The charge was the most serious that Manning faced, and almost certainly would have led to life in a military prison. For those of you unfamiliar with Bradley Manning, he is the Private First Class who was on trial for releasing the data published by Julian Assange on Wikileaks. Because of that, the case has received a great deal of attention from both the media and human rights groups who are attempting to find a balance between government secrecy, transparency, and civil liberties.
Bradley Manning’s acquittal on this charge is not exactly surprising given that it was unprecedented for the government to bring such a charge in a leak case. But still, the government’s argument made some sense if you look at the letter of the law. Luckily, common sense seems to have prevailed. I don’t believe (and I certainly don’t think the government could prove) that he intended to aid the enemy, and a vast majority of the information he leaked probably did not aid al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups in any way. On top of that, there seems to be a lot of questions regarding whether or not most of the information should have been classified in the first place.
That’s not to say that Bradley Manning’s actions weren’t worthy of punishment. Any way you look at it, it’s probably not a good policy to allow military personnel with security clearance to release classified information. But that’s where the other charges come into play. Manning is by no means off the hook. Yes, he beat the most serious and highly publicized charge against him, but he was still convicted of a myriad of other charges. Manning was still convicted of six violations of the Espionage Act of 1917, as well as most of the other 22 charges lodged against him (10 of which he has already plead guilty to). He faces a maximum of 136 years in prison, although he probably won’t receive the maximum sentence due to the plea bargain I mentioned. Regardless, it’ll probably be pretty hefty.
A statement put out by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), both members of the House Intelligence Committee, was cautiously optimistic but also a little confusing to me. Here it is:
“Justice has been served today. PFC Manning harmed our national security, violated the public’s trust, and now stands convicted of multiple serious crimes. There is still much work to be done to reduce the ability of criminals like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden to harm our national security. The House Intelligence Committee continues to work with the Intelligence Community to improve the security of classified information and to put in place better mechanisms to detect individuals who abuse their access to sensitive information.”
My confusion here comes from their claim that they are working hard toward securing classified information and our national security. It seems to me like their plan is to bring the hammer down on anyone like Bradley Manning who leaks information to deter others from doing the same. I know that leaking classified information is different than murder in that it’s usually a planned, calculated act. The leaker usually knows there’s a good chance he might get caught, so I can see the logic behind a deterrence theory argument. But I highly doubt anyone planning to pull a Bradley Manning-esque stunt doesn’t already know that the crime carries a serious penalty.
Maybe instead of throwing the book at Bradley Manning, who seems to have had serious concerns about the military’s policies, we should take a look at overhauling our classification systems. And maybe we shouldn’t be handing out security clearances like candy. Politicians should absolutely go after people like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Leaking government secrets should be punished. But the politicians should at least own up to the fact that this is partially their fault. If we start paying attention to what we classify and who we give security clearance to, we won’t find ourselves in these situations.
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Just weeks after leaking the story that the NSA has been collecting phone records and the internet activity of American citizens, it appears that Edward Snowden will not be seeking permanent asylum in China. Yesterday, multiple news agencies reported that Snowden was on his way to Moscow, where he will apparently wait for Ecuador to grant him asylum. Earlier reports stated that he might be fleeing to Cuba, but it looks like he never boarded the flight that was supposed to take him there.
That’s right, the man who went on the record saying that he was concerned with the direction our government was headed in regard to freedom of speech and privacy has turned to China and Russia for protection. I guess he didn’t hear about the Chinese government upping its own surveillance program in Tibet, or that Russian President Vladimir Putin had an entire band thrown in prison for voicing their opinions on Putin’s Russia, or any number of human rights violations both countries have been accused of committing in the recent past. And he was probably too busy to notice that Ecuador has followed in Venezuela’s footsteps as far as its policy towards America.
Snowden probably fled China because of an extradition treaty we have with them, figuring that sooner or later he would be turned over to the American government and forced to answer for his actions. It was probably a smart move in this regard since we don’t have an extradition treaty with Russia. On top of that, our well-documented, strained relations with Putin’s administration make it even less likely that the Russians would ship him back to the U.S. So why would he go to Ecuador? Why not stay in Russia? After all, the United States accounts for roughly 45% of Ecuador’s trade and they could experience a sharp economic decline if the U.S. decided to retaliate against them for harboring Snowden.
It might have something to do with the fact that the American government has already made a serious push toward convincing Russia to turn him over. The media reported yesterday that the government had filed to revoke Snowden’s passport, which would presumably strand him in Russia for the immediate future. And like I said before, Ecuador tends to take Venezuela’s stance on foreign relations with the U.S. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa is known for making strong statements against America, holding frequent rallies against U.S. “imperialism.” So even if President Obama were to threaten economic sanctions, it doesn’t seem likely that Correa would cave.
It’s also worth noting that Snowden has reportedly received assistance from Julian Assange of WikiLeaks fame. Assange calls Snowden “a hero” and claims that he is healthy and safe in an undisclosed location. Assange himself has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, another valid reason for Snowden to seek asylum in that country. For one, he knows he has at least one ally with ties to the Ecuadorian government. Second, the Ecuadorian government has harbored Assange for nearly a year, protecting him from charges similar to those Snowden would face in the U.S. The precedent set by the Ecuadorian government has to be reassuring for Snowden.
Knowing this, it seems impossible not to question Snowden’s motives at this point. That’s not to say that he was wrong for bringing this to light. This story is definitely concerning and it’s provoked quite a range of responses from the public, and I could argue for both sides all day. Regardless, it seems hypocritical for a self-proclaimed champion of free speech that claims to want to protect the rights of American citizens to turn to two countries known for censorship and a country that regularly voices anti-American sentiments. I’m sure he has his reasons; we just don’t know what they are yet. There’s still speculation that he has deals with foreign governments to sell information about our national security. This seems plausible since he obviously has access to massive amounts of damning reports and other documents. It could also be as simple as Snowden not wanting to spend the rest of his life behind bars, or worse. He reportedly pleaded with the Ecuadorian government that he wouldn’t get a fair trial in the U.S. Either way, it looks like the government’s chances at having a crack at him in a court of law are shrinking at a rapid pace. Luckily, Snowden hasn’t shied away from the spotlight since he made international headlines. We might have more answers soon, but for now we’re still playing the waiting game.
Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Over the last couple of weeks, the a lot has been said on both sides of the argument about Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, and the balance of national security and privacy. His disclosures have raised a moderate amount of outrage on the part of libertarians of both parties, as well as a great deal of discussion on the proper balance of national security needs and privacy rights.
Interestingly, most representatives in Congress does not seem that perturbed by the idea of these programs, although they are livid that they were disclosed in this manner. And of course the Executive has been outraged that one of its trusted contractors has turned on them. And now, Snowden has been charged with espionage, however poorly that statute may fit the offense.
Something that is lost in all of this debate on whether the surveillance programs in question are legal, ethical, wise, etc. is the question of who should be asking these questions and how. We have a Whistleblower Protection Act for a reason, after all. It reiterates and reinforces the idea that national security policy questions are to be dealt with by our cadre of national security professionals and by Congress.
Snowden claims that he leaked the information in order to allow the American public to decide for itself if these programs were appropriate. But his own actions and methods belie this intent. By releasing the information into the public domain, instead of following the prescribed chain of notification and complaint, Snowden decided himself that the programs were a violation of the public’s privacy rights. So instead of having the decision on the careful balance between national security nd privacy made by our elected representatives, Snowden ensured that it was made by an unaccountable high school dropout.
I do not bring up this last point out of spite, or to merely disparage Snowden; I, too, never completed high school. However, there is a reason for the overwhelming preference for college graduates with a broad liberal arts background. Such an education promotes better contextual understanding of the fine balances between the different competing factors confronted in any given situation. This is precisely the skill that the central question in this affair requires: whether the value to national security of these programs is worth the loss of a given amount of privacy. Interestingly enough, this is also exactly the type of decision made on a daily basis by our elected representatives in Congress, who (not incidentally) should have been the Snowden’s last stop before going public.
I know understand how powerful the personal belief that a certain national security program or event is unethical and must be exposed can be. I have been personally involved in a whistleblower case, and seen with my own eyes the emotional strain that can be caused by holding back the information that you vehemently believe should be made public. But that does not excuse those like Snowden or Bradley Manning, who have simply bypassed all of the proper channels and taken the decision entirely into their own hands.
If Snowden was a true patriot, he would not broadcast his information from safe havens abroad, on the run from the law (although he claims he is “not here to hide”—again, his actions belie his claimed intent). He would instead do what respectable whistleblowers do: First go through the correct channels, and when that fails and resort to the open media is required, stand up and face the music. Such whistleblowers often go unprosecuted, and when they are, they can at least rely on a jury of their fellow citizens to come to the rescue.
Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy & Research