Drone strikes in other countries, spying programs that collect data from across almost all facets of the web and taps on the phones of foreign leaders, even allies. As questions continue to arise about the extent of surveillance programs run by the U.S. government, the most common response is simple. We are told these programs save lives, that they are necessarily classified in order to function at the most efficient level. That the examples of the successes of these programs are also necessarily classified — again — for the sake of national security. The continued declaration of national security as the explanation for extralegal actions and the attempt to shut down the conversation on the grounds for national security is a danger and an affront to our history of questioning authority and free speech in this country. The cat is out of the bag. Any terror group foolish enough to rely on American tech companies for their communications will undoubtedly be shopping for alternatives, and the continued smoke and mirrors act only hurts the credibility of the American government.
Administration officials, such as Secretary of State John Kerry, recently admitted the surveillance may have gone too far, especially following revelations about the monitoring of Angela Merkel and other operations which had been operating out of embassies. Still, they stand by their claim that these operations have been key in protecting U.S. citizens. A common claim is that more than 50 operations have been stopped thanks to this information, from administration officials, NSA leaders and even members of Congress such as Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), who has been chairing the hearings into the allegations about NSA programs.
A document that the Al Jazeera newsgroup obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lists “I much prefer to be here today explaining these programs, than explaining another 9/11 event which we were not able to prevent” as a “Sound Bite That Resonates.” While Sept. 11 was a traumatic event that hopefully will never be replicated, that statement simply ignores the facts of the issues with the NSA programs and instead simply relies on emotional shock to justify their actions.
Over and over again, defenders of NSA actions have referred back to thwarted plots, or in this case, hypothetical future plots that might be thwarted, but it is difficult to verify these claims, because they remain classified information, and even of the cases that have been made public, many fail to show clear connections to attacks on Americans. As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) put it, “The American people are getting left with the inaccurate impression of the effectiveness of NSA programs.”
If the Obama administration and Congress hope to convince the American people that these programs are not only legal, but moral and justified, they should be open and clear. It is not enough to admit these programs have gone too far. We need to know why these programs have gone on so long with apparently so little oversight, or why these programs run “on automatic pilot,” as Kerry recently said. If the government cannot be trusted to keep an active watch on the programs they run, it should not be allowed to give vague answers alluding to the need for security without specifics.