Spying on Americans Is Missing the Mark, Obama Would Rein in Culture of Secrecy

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.

Follow Frank Naif on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_naif

Comments

[DreamCatcher50]

This one is a tough issue for me because I see both sides. Personally, I don't have an issue if someone is seeing my emails or listening to phone calls because I am not doing anything illegal. If this policy helps to catch extremist plotting to do harrm then I say go get'em....It would seem that only people with something to hide should be concerned.

This policy may have been directly responsible with outing the latest plot to shoot Obama. if so, this is proof of the good that can come of keeping this policy active.

[donndublin]

"Obama will reign in culture of secrecy" just like he did for "Joe the Plumber".

[RumiSouth]

As a former 98G, it was my experience that omnipotent surveillance powers do NOT make the SIGINT battle any easier. All that accomplishes is a vast increase in the size of the haystack that operators and analysts must search for the rare needle. The far better tactic is focused, aggressive surveillance on known targets, expanded to outlying targets as needs warrant.

But the reason for all these expanded surveillance powers has nothing to do with actually fighting terrorism: policymakers like to be SEEN increasing surveillance. They want to be perceived as "getting tough" on terrorists, and electronic collection is an easier thing to do than real human intelligence or operational work. When it comes to HUMINT and the Black Hats, all the "risk aversion" has been among policy makers, not operators. Bush and Cheney would rather record millions of phone calls than risk actual involvement in a complicated part of Pakistan.

[rjmiller]

"Maryland police classified all of these protesters as "terrorists," so they could justify using new terrorism-fighting procedures to collect intelligence on them."

Our Founding Fathers would be horrified at what has become of their ideals. This is just the sort of thing the Bill of Rights was created to prevent, and now an entire political party representing nearly half of voters is fighting for the ability to commit these crimes.

Honestly, I don't care if people can sue the hell out of AT&T over this since their shareholders aren't responsible. However, the top executives that authorized it as well as a large number of intelligence officers and Bush administrators (including Bush himself) need to be put in prison so this won't happen again so easily. What kind of message does it send if we simply sit around making jokes about government intrusion in our privacy? Think of the message we could send by locking up these criminals.

[bkbigfish]

Except Obama has voted to re affirm every one of bush's policies regarding wire taps, including the one that provides immunity to telecom companies. So I'm not sure why you belive he's going to "rein in" anything....

[RumiSouth]

You have to pick your battles.

[Ramirez]

He only did that to get elected. Didn't want to look like he was flippant about protecting the nation.

After he is elected he will make appropriate changes and modify/shut down our surveillance programs.

[Pdubya]

so, i expect him to practice non-intervention across the globe, repeal the patriot act, military commissions act, fisa, challenge the fed and reverse the bailout following your "logic".

i want some of what you're smoking.

[Pdubya]

FISA!