National security issues (notably NSA’s Prism surveillance program) inevitably come down to a certain immutable reality.
No one, presumably, denies that in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world, we need an NSA. Hell, who would object to a post-facto wire tap, however wrought, on Mohamed Atta? But we differ over where to draw the line–and who to believe. We’re not talking cover-your-ass on Booz Allen Hamilton cost overruns or rigged bidding here. We’re talking protecting America, not compromising intelligence agents in the field–and societal tradeoffs.
And we’re also talking privacy infringement in a democracy–not exactly an abstract ideal. You don’t have to be a hard-core civil libertarian to be concerned about big government intrusion.
Ultimately, however, it’s about who decides. The commander in chief and his surrogates or low-level employees who, surprisingly enough, are privy to a lot of really important stuff? As Edward Joseph Snowden, the NSA techie and surveillance media source, put it: “The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.”
But that obviously means somebody else, whether a Snowden, Bradley Manning or Daniel Ellsberg, expeditiously decides what the public literally makes its decisions on. If it proves to be well-intentioned but calamitously counterproductive in an increasingly unsafe world, so be it, seems one popular rationale. Freedom’s always worth the risk.
But there’s arguably a major difference between the Pentagon Papers, which unearthed the embarrassing context for the unconscionable Vietnam War, and data gathering and gatherers in a world of globally-communicated terrorism plots–many of them aimed at the U.S. Recall that President John F. Kennedy is said to have ironically regretted that the New York Times didn’t run with what it knew before the Bay of Pigs debacle. But that begs the question: Should the New York Times, which was wrong in its weapons-of-mass-destruction enabling of the George W. Bush Administration, be the ultimate arbiter? Let alone Edward Joseph Snowden? It’s somebody’s call.
I’d like to believe that the commander in chief is believable. “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” said President Barack Obama. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”
Put it this way: We should be able to live with big bother, not Big Brother. There’s a difference.