The government’s forensic investigation is wrestling with Snowden’s apparent ability to defeat safeguards established to monitor and deter people looking at information without proper permission, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the sensitive developments publicly.
The disclosure undermines the Obama administration’s assurances to Congress and the public that the NSA surveillance programs can’t be abused because its spying systems are so aggressively monitored and audited for oversight purposes: If Snowden could defeat the NSA’s own tripwires and internal burglar alarms, how many other employees or contractors could do the same? ~Goldman & Dozier
“The abuse is rampant and everyone is pretending that it’s never happened, and it couldn’t happen. … I know [there was abuse] because I had my hands on the papers for these sorts of things: They went after high-ranking military officers; they went after members of congress — Senate and the House — especially on the intelligence committees and the armed services committees, lawyers, law firms, judges, State Department officials, part of the White House, multinational companies, financial firms, NGOs, civil rights groups …” ~ Russ Tice, NSA agent from 2002-2005, quoted by Michael Kelly.
Here’s the question I would love to ask our top NSA officials and their government handlers, if I could get them all in a room and lock the doors: Are you guys even capable of giving a straight, unparsed, and truthful answer to any question, or are you so far gone that Truth isn’t even a category you recognize?
It’s been obvious for some time that the NSA doesn’t know what Snowden has – their denials of specific surveillance capabilities and abuses have several times been followed by the release of purloined NSA documents which utterly discredit their denials. The fact that they’re backtracking now, albeit through anonymous officials, shows only that their strategy of last resort is one of incremental honesty: tell the least amount of truth possible, and only when not doing so would be farcical.
In following the Snowden story and reading up on the NSA’s reaction to past whistleblowers, it’s clear a game is being played, and so far, the NSA has won every round. If allegations of abuse survive past the instant excoriating of the source, unequivocal denials are made . . . . Don’t be silly — we don’t have the capability for that level of surveillance — you must be filling you head with too many of those Hollywood spy flicks. The implication is clear: such questioners are fanciful and none too bright. Then, should incontrovertible evidence surface, most recently thanks to a 29-year-old-high-school-dropout-loser, the narrative, typically from “unnamed sources,” switches to, Well, of course the NSA spied on so & so or such & such. Hellooo — everybody knows that. It’s an “open secret” and this IS a secret agency. Where have you been all this time, you silly goose?
I wonder: do the rules of high school cliquedom ever really expire? At any rate, reporters often fall for that ploy — the desire not to look stupid or naive usually trumps the urge to be morally outraged at being lied to. If enough reporters show signs of persisting with their bothersome questions, the terrorism card is pulled out: We’ve got real bad guys to catch, you know. This is a serious business we’re in, and you’ll be mighty sorry if you distract us from that. Remember 9-11? Now go and play elsewhere . . . So journalists tend to quit digging, underplay the abuse-of-power revelations in their stories and pass that don’t-be-a-rube feeling onto their readers.
Going back to my little scenario at the beginning of this post: I’m not naïve enough to imagine I’d get an honest answer to my question, or even some decent squirming. But if these allegations don’t go away, and the popping up of confirming documents becomes bothersome enough, I’m just rube enough to hope that the NSA’s leaders might eventually opt for the most radical strategy of all – telling the whole truth, taking the consequences, and submitting to real oversight.
I know it’s a fantasy, but it’s not as if there isn’t a lot of that going around already.