Our government is spying on us.
I'm sure you've heard or read that before. It's been reported in a variety of contexts--President Bush's warrantless wiretap program, for example. Intelligence fusion centers have sprung up nationwide, blurring the lines between federal- and local level intelligence and law enforcement activities. The Department of Defense, meanwhile, appears to be reconstituting a domestic intelligence apparatus that had been disbanded after the intelligence reforms of the '70s.
Two news stories in recent weeks paint a clearer picture of how spying on ordinary Americans actually works, or more aptly, doesn't work--at least the way it's supposed to, in order to protect America from more terrorist attacks. Indeed, spying on Americans is missing the mark so completely that it's hard to imagine what objective US intelligence and law enforcement are actually expecting to accomplish.
Here in my home state of Maryland, the state police have been spying--you know, undercover agents and secret identities and all that--on people who picket against the death penalty. And war protesters. And environmental activists. Maryland police classified all of these protesters as "terrorists," so they could justify using new terrorism-fighting procedures to collect intelligence on them. They even submitted surveillance subjects' names to a Federal terrorist database. The Maryland state police have since submitted letters admitting to a "big mistake" to 53 individuals who were subjected to spying. More such letters are expected, and late-breaking revelations indicate that the scope of the Maryland spying operation is even larger than initially thought.
Those 53 individuals would probably be recognizable to most ordinary Americans. Among the targets of the Maryland State Police intelligence operations: nuns. Growing up in Indiana, I knew church ladies who were involved in death penalty protests--they really believed that no one deserved to die at the hands of other men. They baked cookies and wouldn't hurt a fly. Later, in college, I came to know the campus and community activists who were involved in death penalty protests, deeply committed to the non-violent principles of Gandhi and King.
Okay, some of them were kumbaya singing, hemp-wearing, holdouts from the '60s, They may have embodied all kinds of conservative fear and loathing--but not threatening by any measure. Whether or not one agrees with opposition to the death penalty, America's current wars, or climate change, these particular progressive movements don't have a history of violence. Nor do they have a reputation for making common cause with violent extremists like Al Qaeda.
As a former intelligence officer, it's difficult for me to imagine the justification for using scarce human intelligence resources to target groups known for their non-violence and commitment to civil disobedience. Use of intrusive intelligence gathering tools really should only be used against the most dangerous and sneaky threats. Such misuse of intelligence methods not only affronts American traditions of free speech and political involvement, it endangers Maryland residents by diverting attention away from real terrorism threats.
Surely, you're thinking, it could be worse than a bunch of eager Barney Fifes breaking the rules so they could spy on Maryland hippies and church ladies.
Yes, it is worse.
The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on private conversations between American military members in the war zones and their loved ones back here in the states, as well as between contractors, aid workers, and their stateside friends and families.
As if listening in on our own heroic service members isn't indignity enough, the NSA technicians who were actually listening saved the juicy and sexy "pillow talk" calls for playback and joking.
Nothing like making the defenders of our freedom the butt of a little unconstitutional joke, and then circulating it around the office.
Hopefully, NSA analysts didn't miss important terrorist cell phone calls while they were passing around mp3 files of lonely GIs in Iraq and their horny wives back in the US. And if we're lucky, our intelligence agencies didn't miss any important terrorist threat information--about real terrorists--while they were busy reading reports on granola-crunching American death penalty protesters and little old knitting American church ladies. These kinds of intelligence outrages--against Americans!--could have been prevented with oversight, accountability, and compliance with the rule of law.
Which presidential candidate is most likely to take steps to stop these kinds of abuses?
Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have been focused on the economic meltdown since these stories of domestic spying gone wrong broke . The media certainly hasn't helped connect these stories to the election, what with Joe the Plumber, or the $150,000 worth of couture for regular old down home mom Sarah Palin. Nonetheless, the policy proposals of both candidates show some clear differences between how McCain and Obama are likely to approach domestic intelligence abuses like these revealed in the past months.
McCain's campaign web site promises to protect American privacy and civil liberties while vigorously defending against future terrorist attacks. But McCain's national security team has already discounted the current intelligence community as too risk averse, and McCain's own Senate voting record indicates he supports intrusive domestic spying. Additionally, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin indicated in her debate against Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden that she envisions an even greater expansion of executive power. It's hard to imagine that the McCain-Palin vision of a toughened, empowered intelligence community, under unchecked executive power, will be somehow more respectful of the rights of Americans than our current Bush-Cheney state of affairs.
Obama's Blueprint for Change calls for reining in the culture of secrecy. Additionally, many of the national security and military professionals advising the Obama campaign have expressed misgivings about intelligence venturing into the domestic realm. Perhaps even more significantly, the possibility of a Democratic sweep in the House and Senate could strengthen the hand of the intelligence oversight committees and usher in productive, effective supervision of the intelligence and homeland security communities.
The fight against terrorism in post 9/11 America deserves better than surveillance of groups disliked by conservatives and eavesdropping on our troops and their families. Here's hoping for a better, smarter fight that doesn't scorn our own neighbors and fellow Americans.