Jealous Power
I waited a couple of days before I sat down to write about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) gigantic spy net scandal.
To be honest, I’m not sure what I was waiting for. Was I waiting for Edward Snowden to be found strangled with a stocking? Or was I waiting for Obama to come up front on the TV screen and cry out in a Nixon-style “I’m not a crook”?
These kinds of exotic scenarios are not realistic. The reality is far more mundane; that’s why it’s more troubling. A Washington Post-Pew Research poll revealed Monday that two-thirds of Americans are willing to allow the government to monitor their private life if that helps the fight against terrorism.
Even the recently revealed massive collection of data run by the NSA is considered a reasonable price by most Americans — as if they never heard Benjamin Franklin saying that those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. The Pew Center analysis points out that the results of its recent poll are practically identical to those registered in 2006, when an AT&T technician brought to light the secretive wiretapping facility developed in San Francisco by the same agency.
The only difference is that when Bush was in power, most opponents to the measures were Democrats, while Republicans thought it was acceptable. Now political opinions mirror the exact opposite, but generally the public says, “OK.”
Besides, politicians are quiet. There was a slight turmoil in Congress, but overall we haven’t heard — and I doubt we will — energetic objections among the lawmakers on either side of the aisle.
Why would they make noise? So far there is no evidence that the law was broken — a quite troublesome fact, in my opinion.
It’s been a long time since federal courts ruled that mobile phones are not covered by the same level of protection as land lines. According to a law signed in 1978 and amended in 2001, spying on suspects of terrorism and espionage could be done in full secrecy.
The famous 2001 Patriot Act, which was extended for another four years with a Congress decision and with the president’s signature in 2011, gives robust power to the government as long as it says it fights terrorism.
In other words, do not expect miracles out of the latest revelations. The public mood is far from what we had in 1971, when the well-known classified Pentagon report on the war in Vietnam was published.
Daniel Ellsberg, who released the top Pentagon study to The New York Times, declared Snowden a hero. It’s a little too early for that.
In 2008, Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. Absolutely not! The White House today is one of the most hermetically sealed and restricted operations I remember.
The administration is jealous and even vengeful toward anyone who dares to release information. See what happened to the poor soldier Bradley Manning, who fed WikiLeaks so much valuable data. He was kept in isolation for more than a year, as if he were Hannibal Lecter from “The Silence of the Lambs.” The way he was treated looked like an attempt to intimidate other people who may be tempted to disclose information that compromises the military.
In the meantime, the intelligence business goes into the hands of private contractors in the exactly same fashion the Pentagon gave Iraq to companies such as Blackwater.
Of the NSA’s $8 billion annual budget, about $7 billion is spent on paying contractors, such as Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton. The military complains about a 10 percent budget cut, but forgets to mention that this same budget has grown by 81 percent since 2001. Whoever expects a serious reduction in military spending needs a reality check.
The interests behind the military machine are profound; public opinion is too apathetic to bring change. Snowden will be chased after with criminal charges. The fuss is going to gradually slow down and old habits will take over — old habits that have always been around.
To be honest, I’m not sure what I was waiting for. Was I waiting for Edward Snowden to be found strangled with a stocking? Or was I waiting for Obama to come up front on the TV screen and cry out in a Nixon-style “I’m not a crook”?
These kinds of exotic scenarios are not realistic. The reality is far more mundane; that’s why it’s more troubling. A Washington Post-Pew Research poll revealed Monday that two-thirds of Americans are willing to allow the government to monitor their private life if that helps the fight against terrorism.
Even the recently revealed massive collection of data run by the NSA is considered a reasonable price by most Americans — as if they never heard Benjamin Franklin saying that those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. The Pew Center analysis points out that the results of its recent poll are practically identical to those registered in 2006, when an AT&T technician brought to light the secretive wiretapping facility developed in San Francisco by the same agency.
The only difference is that when Bush was in power, most opponents to the measures were Democrats, while Republicans thought it was acceptable. Now political opinions mirror the exact opposite, but generally the public says, “OK.”
Besides, politicians are quiet. There was a slight turmoil in Congress, but overall we haven’t heard — and I doubt we will — energetic objections among the lawmakers on either side of the aisle.
Why would they make noise? So far there is no evidence that the law was broken — a quite troublesome fact, in my opinion.
It’s been a long time since federal courts ruled that mobile phones are not covered by the same level of protection as land lines. According to a law signed in 1978 and amended in 2001, spying on suspects of terrorism and espionage could be done in full secrecy.
The famous 2001 Patriot Act, which was extended for another four years with a Congress decision and with the president’s signature in 2011, gives robust power to the government as long as it says it fights terrorism.
In other words, do not expect miracles out of the latest revelations. The public mood is far from what we had in 1971, when the well-known classified Pentagon report on the war in Vietnam was published.
Daniel Ellsberg, who released the top Pentagon study to The New York Times, declared Snowden a hero. It’s a little too early for that.
In 2008, Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. Absolutely not! The White House today is one of the most hermetically sealed and restricted operations I remember.
The administration is jealous and even vengeful toward anyone who dares to release information. See what happened to the poor soldier Bradley Manning, who fed WikiLeaks so much valuable data. He was kept in isolation for more than a year, as if he were Hannibal Lecter from “The Silence of the Lambs.” The way he was treated looked like an attempt to intimidate other people who may be tempted to disclose information that compromises the military.
In the meantime, the intelligence business goes into the hands of private contractors in the exactly same fashion the Pentagon gave Iraq to companies such as Blackwater.
Of the NSA’s $8 billion annual budget, about $7 billion is spent on paying contractors, such as Snowden’s former employer, Booz Allen Hamilton. The military complains about a 10 percent budget cut, but forgets to mention that this same budget has grown by 81 percent since 2001. Whoever expects a serious reduction in military spending needs a reality check.
The interests behind the military machine are profound; public opinion is too apathetic to bring change. Snowden will be chased after with criminal charges. The fuss is going to gradually slow down and old habits will take over — old habits that have always been around.