NSA Espionage: Did Obama Know?
Published in Le Nouvel Observateur
(France) on 29 October 2013
by Philippe Boulet-Gercourt (link to
original)
A curious scoop came out in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. According to the headline, Barack Obama was “unaware” of the fact that his country was spying on world leaders. The White House ordered an internal audit of the National Security Agency, which appears to be conducting surveillance on 35 heads of state or government. Learning the news, the president ordered an end to certain surveillance activities, including the tapping of Angela Merkel’s cell phone. Spying on governments is the kind of the decision that the NSA makes on its own. According to the article, “The president does not sign off on this kind of thing.”
This Tuesday morning, The Washington Post also presented the thesis that the president is not well-informed. It was not until this summer, after Edward Snowden’s revelations about spying on the leaders of Brazil and Mexico, that Obama demanded to know exactly what kind of surveillance the NSA was undertaking. The particular existence of a program called “head of state collection” raises some eyebrows. Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate intelligence committee and one of the most ardent defenders of the NSA, was herself also kept in the dark about the VIP program.
Is this believable? The New York Times refrained from taking up the same thesis. This morning, The Los Angeles Times gives voice to the intelligence leaders who are “furious,” they say, about being left exposed by the president. If their sources are to be believed — the newspaper does not give any names — when a foreign leader is placed under surveillance, the American ambassador to the country in question is informed, as well as the White House official on the National Security Council in charge of the country. “There is no doubt that the national security adviser, as well as high intelligence officials, were perfectly aware. To suggest that that is not the case would be ridiculous,” says an irritated former spy.*
Whether He Is Lying or Ignorant, Obama Comes Out Behind
Two scenarios are possible; neither is great for Obama. The first would be that he lies when he says that he was not aware. One can actually be quite skeptical about the idea that the president elected on the promise of correcting Bush’s excesses — Guantanamo, CIA torture, etc. — would not even have asked for a meticulous audit of NSA practices. It is just as difficult to believe that, in 2009 or 2010, Dennis Blair, national intelligence director, had had a discussion with French officials on a mutual nonespionage agreement, an agreement sought equally by the Germans. One can hardly imagine the president was not informed of such an important initiative.
The other scenario, that Obama really was ignorant of the NSA’s practices, is no better. It would either be the height of hypocrisy — the left hand not knowing what the right is doing — or it is an admission of incompetence. Peter King, Republican official and influential member of the Committee on Intelligence, summarized the critique perfectly: “I would say if the president did not know, that raises very serious questions about what he's doing as chief executive. The fact he would be going into negotiations and discussions and meetings with Angela Merkel or French leaders — or any leaders for that matter — and not be aware that there was surveillance going on of the private phone calls, to me either something is definitely wrong in his administration or he just has a totally hands-off attitude. To me, this is unacceptable.”
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, this quote was unable to be sourced.
This Tuesday morning, The Washington Post also presented the thesis that the president is not well-informed. It was not until this summer, after Edward Snowden’s revelations about spying on the leaders of Brazil and Mexico, that Obama demanded to know exactly what kind of surveillance the NSA was undertaking. The particular existence of a program called “head of state collection” raises some eyebrows. Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate intelligence committee and one of the most ardent defenders of the NSA, was herself also kept in the dark about the VIP program.
Is this believable? The New York Times refrained from taking up the same thesis. This morning, The Los Angeles Times gives voice to the intelligence leaders who are “furious,” they say, about being left exposed by the president. If their sources are to be believed — the newspaper does not give any names — when a foreign leader is placed under surveillance, the American ambassador to the country in question is informed, as well as the White House official on the National Security Council in charge of the country. “There is no doubt that the national security adviser, as well as high intelligence officials, were perfectly aware. To suggest that that is not the case would be ridiculous,” says an irritated former spy.*
Whether He Is Lying or Ignorant, Obama Comes Out Behind
Two scenarios are possible; neither is great for Obama. The first would be that he lies when he says that he was not aware. One can actually be quite skeptical about the idea that the president elected on the promise of correcting Bush’s excesses — Guantanamo, CIA torture, etc. — would not even have asked for a meticulous audit of NSA practices. It is just as difficult to believe that, in 2009 or 2010, Dennis Blair, national intelligence director, had had a discussion with French officials on a mutual nonespionage agreement, an agreement sought equally by the Germans. One can hardly imagine the president was not informed of such an important initiative.
The other scenario, that Obama really was ignorant of the NSA’s practices, is no better. It would either be the height of hypocrisy — the left hand not knowing what the right is doing — or it is an admission of incompetence. Peter King, Republican official and influential member of the Committee on Intelligence, summarized the critique perfectly: “I would say if the president did not know, that raises very serious questions about what he's doing as chief executive. The fact he would be going into negotiations and discussions and meetings with Angela Merkel or French leaders — or any leaders for that matter — and not be aware that there was surveillance going on of the private phone calls, to me either something is definitely wrong in his administration or he just has a totally hands-off attitude. To me, this is unacceptable.”
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, this quote was unable to be sourced.