The knowledge that ‘harms our national security’

January 4, 2006

Scott McClellan repeated a common White House claim in today’s press briefing about the reports that have exposed Bush’s warrantless-search program.

“[T]his is a highly classified program. It is an important program. The fact that this has been openly and publicly discussed has harmed our national security. This involves intelligence activities relating to the war on terrorism.”

We’ve been hearing this a lot lately. Over the weekend, in a sound bite the Bush gang was particularly fond of, deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said, “The fact is that al Qaeda’s playbook is not printed on Page One, and when America’s is, it has serious ramifications. You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to understand that.”

I’ve heard similar claims for two weeks, from Bush on down, and I have to admit, I have no idea what in the world they’re talking about. I can appreciate why knowledge of the surveillance program harms Bush’s political support, but not why it undermines national security.

We try and eavesdrop on terrorists. I suspect the terrorists, like everyone else, know this. If awareness of these efforts rips the cover off of “America’s playbook,” as Duffy suggested is the case on Friday, then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

After all, what kind of classified insights have we gained here? It’s not that Bush is spying; it’s that Bush is spying without oversight or warrants. Call it a hunch, but I don’t think the terrorists care.

Indeed, based on the rhetoric thus far, it sounds like the administration is spinning its best demagoguery. It’s not quite “if we have to follow the rule of law, the terrorists win,” but it’s close.

Atrios invited conservatives last night to explain “how exactly it damages national security to reveal the fact that we spy on people without secret warrants instead of the fact that we spy on people with secret warrants.” No one stepped up.

It’s a shame. I’ve been anxious for someone on the right to explain it to me.

As someone else has said somewhere else, if the terrorists don’t know they’re being spied on until they read it in the paper, they’re not really very smart terrorists and so nobody needs to be afraid of them. Makes sense to me.

  • Actually, I would imagine that terrorists find it quite amusing that Bush is compelled to break the law to fight them. It means their tactics are breaking down democracy. The spoiled child of a president we have is giving the terrorists exactly what they want.

    Not that I think for one second that the reason Bush is breaking the law is to fight terrorists or keep Americans safe. More likely to fight taxes and keep pocketbooks safe.

  • As I see it, the only way it could hurt is if some American-citizen terrorist is communicating with others overseas, is ignorant of FISA and thinks they can’t be spied on because of their citizenship. How many of those do you think there are? The key to this whole thing is that the administration is spying on American citizens withough warrants, not that they’re spying on possible terrorists. There’s no spinning that.

  • Hmmm, maybe the Bush gang should read some Sun Tzu. Here is a free lesson for the WarBuddha’s handling of Iraq:

    The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. ~ Sun Tzu, circa 300 B.C.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html

    “To achieve victory over such enemies, we are pursuing a comprehensive strategy in Iraq. Americans should have a clear understanding of this strategy — how we look at the war, how we see the enemy, how we define victory, and what we’re doing to achieve it. So today, we’re releasing a document called the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” ” ~ George W. Bush, Nov. 2005

  • Here’s the part I don’t understand,if this has been going on for 4 years,how is it that not a single success has been acknowledged? Are we to believe that each and every one of the terrorists from 4 years ago are still making calls? Or are we waiting for world round-up day where the US and our allies simutaneously seize the entire network of what? A couple hundred thousand people and stash them in Gitmo? The whole defense just makes no sense and the logistics alone make the argument untenable.
    Can you imagine an administration that has touted the capture of the terrorist salmon fisherman as support for the PATRIOT Act,keeping quiet about a bunch of terrorist telephoners?

  • More to the point, we wouldn’t have to have this conversation if Bush hadn’t broken the law. Which he didn’t need to do. So it is Bush’s fault that it’s being discussed.

  • I think we should be somewhat careful and not assume that we know the full extent of the program. There may well be aspects which are not obvious and should remain secret.

    Clearly there should be an investigation to determine if the law was broken. But what’s not clear is whether we should or shouldn’t allow some sort of spying on US citizens in the US, and if we do, what are the safeguards that need to be in place. Is this just a case where the (vice) president feels he is above the law? Is so, impeach him. But if FISA is a true hinderance, then it should be revisited by congress.

    Let’s not get too far out in front of this. Let’s keep the pressure on but not make it such a partisan affair. Too much is at stake to make it a red-blue issue.

  • CB, if I explained to you why the terrorists would benefit, then the terrorists would benefit. Sheesh!

  • “…I can appreciate why knowledge of the surveillance program harms Bush’s political support, but not why it undermines national security….”

    To a Republican, those two things are precisely synonymous.

  • TJM, but this could have stopped 9/11, and that’s good enough!

    Dan, there is no reason for this to be a partisan issue other than the blind allegiance of the Bush supporters: a fair number of honorable conservatives have actually stepped up to acknowledge how wrong this kind of presidential lawlessness is.

    But we have the administration’s very own word that they considered changing FISA but gathered (god knows how) that it wouldn’t pass congress, an institution that has passed every single initiative that george bush has asked for.

    and the bush administration wouldn’t lie, would it?

  • I think the unspoken argument revolves not around whether there is eavesdropping, but the actual methods employed. It’s not a question of simply listening in on phone calls of specified individuals. That would be easy getting FISA warrents for. Rather, I think the methodology involved here may be more akin to large scale datamining of huge numbers of concurrent conversations for particular phrases (or calling patterns, languages, etc.). If the government could systematically and in an automated fashion sieve through huge numbers of communications as a way of identifying potential “suspects”, well that would not be easy getting a FISA warrent for. It may sound strange, but if I can get the results of a Google search in thousandths of a second that identifies a handful of relevant websites from within the entire contents of the World Wide Web, then the technology is probably also there for the kind of datamining of voice and email communications that I’ve alluded to. Such a program might be useful (though I doubt it). It would not, however, be constitutional. It’s searching without probable cause. That may be why Bush went extra-legal on this. He knew it would not have been approved up front.

  • eric got it right. remember total information awareness? this is that. it’s not great – even if it has 99% precision (terrorists correctly detected/terrorists detected) and 99% recall (terrorists correctly detected/total terrorists) when you consider that you’re monitoring 300 million people you have an awful lot of false positives to comb through. And optimistic numbers can’t be more than in the 70s.

  • Also, aren’t they using the example “If we know Al Quaeda is at a particular phone number…”? If that’s how this thing works, then every Al Queda operative on earth knows to get a new phone number right away. That would make it harder to listen in on their calls, and that could harm national security.

    Only, didn’t the “phone number” part come from the administration? I don’t remember hearing it from the Times or a member of Congress. I think that’s from the President, or McLellan, or both. So the revelation that would matter would be the one from the White House?

  • Have a little more faith in your country and its leadership. … you all make me sick…

    lol

  • They can’t explain it because it makes no sense. It’s just part of the Bush administration’s strategy for playing the mind games that it does with the American people. It’s all about “fear” and “shame”. If you can’t make them compliant with fear, then you attempt to do so with shame.

    Fear and Shame. It’s the Bush way.

  • If we throw out the rule of law to fight the terrorists, then the terrorists have won. You know… that whole Man for All Seasons thing.

  • GOPLover says Have a little more faith in your country and its leadership.

    Something tells me that GOPLover is not writing from New Orleans and that he doesn’t have a father or sister who was sent to Iraq without body armor.

  • Howard: “…congress, an institution that has passed every single initiative that george bush has asked for.”

    They also passed the McCain amendment, which Bush most certainly did not ask for 😉

    • Comments are closed.