Foreign Policy Blogs

GailForce: Aspen Security Forum Part II

Edward_Snowden_Guardian_016_900x504

Source: CBS Evening News

As I watched the Snowden saga unfold, I found myself concerned on several levels but what frustrated me most, was the lack of balanced reporting early on.  It seemed to me that much of the initial coverage was in the: “Are you still beating your wife?” tabloid type reporting.  Don’t get me wrong — tabloid reporting is a long time guilty pleasure of mine, but I draw the line on things like national security topics.  Here’s the “so what” factor for me:  It is hard to get people to accept additional information on a topic once they form an opinion.  A quote by Winston Churchill comes to mind:  “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” How can you have a real public debate with only part of the information?

For instance, during the Aspen Security Forum last week, former Congresswoman Jane Harmon pointed out that people have known about this program for some time.  The New York Times did an article about the program in 2005 and President Bush partially declassified it.  She went on to state that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978 in response to abuses in the Nixon administration.  The program set up a careful system of the FISA Court, a system of federal judges along with intelligence committees on the Hill meant to monitor the FISA applications.  There has been robust oversight over the years.

There was quite a bit of time spent on the Snowden situation by senior officials during last week’s forum.  I thought I’d use this blog to pass on some of the things that seemed significant to me on this topic.  Many of the key current and former players on this issue were in attendance at the Aspen Security Forum as speakers to include:

All of the sessions were moderated by well-known and respected members of the press. Pete Williams of NBC was the moderator for the talk with General Alexander.  He opened up by asking the general about some of the misunderstandings that he had seen as the programs became public.  In response, General Alexander made the following points:

I thought Raj De provided the best understanding of the legalities of the programs.  Highlights of his comments:

Another thing that has bothered me is that as a systems administrator Snowden obviously had access to sensitive information; however, since he was not a trained intelligence analyst, did he understand the how, why, and the legality of the NSA program?  Did he not know about the legality of it?  If he did know, was it a case of not agreeing with the legal rulings?  Also, did he understand how intelligence analysis works and the significance of leaking a major collection program, or did he think he knew and was not as informed as he thinks he was?  I don’t know the answers but will continue to watch as the investigation continues to unfold.

Shortly before this current scandal broke out I blogged about the significance during World War II of the fact the U.S. naval intelligence was able to read about 20 percent of the Japanese Navy’s messages and asked would the media have leaked that capability if they found out about it.  If they had, I submit there is a good chance we might not have won the war in the Pacific.  With hindsight, it’s easy to look at scenario like that one and understand what the impact would have been if that capability had been leaked.

In today’s environment of skepticism and mistrust of the government, it’s far more difficult to get that point across, especially when you’re playing catch up.  Dr. Carter stated they are doing an assessment, and it looks like the damage will be substantial.  General Alexander said what Snowden did was essentially give our enemies our playbook.

Think I’ll end here. I’ll be blogging more about the Aspen Security Forum in the coming days.  As always my views are my own.

Exit mobile version