I was going to blog on Specter’s MTP interview yesterday, as well as Deputy DNI Hayden’s appearance on FNS, but was too busy helping getting the house straight for the SB to do so.
At any rate, the NYT lays out the basics of both in this piece: Specter Says Surveillance Program Violated the Law
On balance, I was struck by Specter’s interview, insofar as his assessment of the situation tracks fairly closely to my own: that the program appears to violate FISA, that the usage of the authorization for force given by Congress after 9/11 results for an over-broad interpretation, and that if such a program is needed then the President should ask the Congress to have the law changed.
Hearings before the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Chaired by Specter, will take place today.
What was interesting about Hayden’s interview was that he seemed to say that the program was not one of massive data-mining, as has been speculated. Of course, he was sufficiently circumspect about the whole thing that it was hard to draw firm conclusions about from his answers.
Also in re: Hayden, I am getting tired of the “we can’t talk about, it’s secret, trust us” line of argument. On the one hand, I do understand that that is the way it has to be for some programs, but when the controversy at hand is about the fact that there is insufficient oversight over the program, it is rather unsatisfying for those who may need the oversight to say “trust us, we don’t need oversight, but I can’t tell you why.” Indeed, the need to alleviate such problems is why checks and balances are necessary.
Data Mining is a cool term that many analysts in all industries use to make themselves seem more analytically sophistocated than they are. The term has stretch way beyond where it was just a few years ago.
A few months ago a group of analysts called Able Danger insisted they were data mining when they read a few newspapers and tried to link people via mentions. It sounds like the current flap is over what used to be called a “trap and trace” operation. People know the overseas target, and follow that call on shore to see who they’re contacting here. Not related to Data Mining.
Data Mining is a cool term that many people have been adding to there resume of late. It impresses the higher ups and sends a signal that an operation is being run by smart people. However most operations that use the term have only a vague understand what it means.
Rule of thumb. There are several pieces of information that should somewhere be available if a real data miner is at work. Show me the Logit calculation. Show me the lift charts. What is the gain, and in what region? What basic model was used, and was the model hybridized? If any of these questions elicit a blank stare — then data mining was a term they read about but are clueless on the meaning. The operation could have just as accurately been called by some other jargon such as “constructive decisioning” or “win-win situation” or “new paradigm”, as they are just as meaningless and incorrect for what was being done.
Comment by Buckland — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 8:29 am
Where to begin…This topic has turned into such a political boogerbear that it has become really annoying. Once upon a time I can see why people were concerned about wire tapping, with the possible third amendment ramifications. Of course this quickly digress into and inherent right verses granted right discussion.
With the advances/limitations of modern technology any phone communication can be intercepted with the right tools. I had to discontinue the use of my baby monitor because I really didn’t want to know what I was learning about my neighbors. Everybody knows your call can be intercepted in this manner, yet no one seems concerned enough to stop using wireless phones.
Not to sound trite or to oversimplify this matter, but if it is “illegal” for the government to intercept phone calls for whatever reason should it not also be “illegal” for people to use cell phones in public, especially the annoying ones where you get both sides of the conversation?
For the matter of oversight - I believe in areas of high security congress has forfitted much of its ability to preform this function, because there are far to many security leaks that come out when it is politically advantagous. And yes I admit both parties do it.
Comment by paige — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 9:51 am
Buckland: my use of “data mining” was meant to deal with the idea of something like the TIA proposal. Although I continue to grant that exactly what is going on is quite unclear.
Paige: There is a substantial difference between me overhearing something about my neighbors and the government overhearing it.
It is doubly problematic if the government is doing so when I have a reasonable expectation that they aren’t trying to intercept my communication.
If members of the government read this blog, no big–it is in the public for all to see. If they read the Word docs on my laptop, that’s a whole ‘nother problem.
Further, your cell phone analogy is problematic–presumably if the annoying dude on the cell phone didn’t want his conversation overhead, he wouldn’t be talking on his phone in public.
The problem here, as with all things, is that there are trade-offs. I will gladly trade the risk of security leaks for heightened oversight.
The logic you are employing here, which many defenders of the program have proffered, is that Congress can’t be trusted, so we can’t tell them. By that logic all programs linked to security have to be walled off from Congress, lest some naughty congressperson leak the information.
I am not willing to have the power inherent in such activities be monitored by those who have the power–there has to be oversight, and so one takes the risk of leaks.
Further, I would note, it isn’t just Congress that leaks. If that were the case we never would have heard about this story in the first place, right?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 11:02 am
Prehaps I have read one to many Vince Flynn novels. However I have far less concern over the government hearing my phone calls to suspected terrorist than say my mother-in-law over hearing how bad her cooking was last Sunday.
I wish this argument was more focus on the ramifications of modern technology and constitutional checks and balances. This issue seems to be more about political posturing and that is what bothers me.
Comment by paige — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 11:24 am
There is a great deal of political posturing going on here, to be sure. I think, however, it is noteworthy that the fault lines here are not simply the typical pro and anti Bush camps. There are substantial numbers of persons, myself included, who have been generally supportive of the President and the overall goals with the war on terror who find this situation to be highly problematic.
And not to sound too combative, but I think you present a false, and somewhat flippant dichotomy. If the choice was simply between protecting Mom from being overheard discussing recipes and not catching terrorists, ok, fine. But it isn’t that simple. We are talking, at the root of all of this, of the President asserting the power to gather intelligence from communications that include American citizens on US soil with no more oversight than the fact that some careerists at the NSA think that it is necessary.
Once we allow the President (any President) to assert powers that violate constitutional protecting because he thinks that it is in the best interest of the country, then we have started down a dangerous road.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 11:34 am
Exactly right. This is a constitutional, sepration of powers, issue. Whether this power is constitutional or not we may disagree (beleive it or not I am still evolving my opinion as more dicussion takes place), but I beleve all constituional defenders agree we take the good along with the bad.
I think when your commentors are flippant if often serves focus your thoughts as you have done so well here.
Comment by paige — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 11:50 am
[…] d Balances
By Dr. Steven Taylor @ 1:37 pm
(This post is a modified version of a response that I left to a coment to this post). The argument that is oft employed in the deb […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » The Secrecy Argument and Checks and Balances — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 1:40 pm
“No oversight” is a misstatement of the facts. Members of Congress were briefed, including Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Polosi, and Jane Harmon. Vice President Cheney briefed selected members of Congress on an ongoing basis. However, they did not testify before the appropriate committees. Limited oversight is more accurate.
Comment by Aubrey — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 3:51 pm
I don’t consider a handful of briefings to constitute “oversight.”
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, February 6, 2024 @ 4:00 pm