NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md.
I see that New York Times columnist Tom Friedman tells us that Americans should go along with the NSA’s massive data collection programs:
“Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.”
I’m afraid I’m with Foreign Policy blogger Dan Drezner on this one:
“Here’s my question: how the bleep would Friedman know if abuse did occur? We’re dealing with super-secret programs here. Exactly what investigative or oversight body would detect such abuse? What I worry about is that we have no idea whether national security bureaucracies abuse their privilege.”
Look: I’m no absolutist when it comes to civil liberties. I understand that there are trade-offs between safety and privacy. And I’m wary of “slippery slope” arguments suggesting that any increase in the powers of law enforcement must necessarily lead to a police state. But I also know that individuals – even good ones – can do bad things with the best of intentions and that secrecy, though necessary, creates huge scope for misconduct.
The bottom line: I might well support any or all of the NSA programs that have, thus far, been (sketchily) described. But I am unprepared to do so unless we know: a) the nature of those programs; b) their scope; c) their legal justification and d) the effectiveness of congressional and judicial oversight.
We know none of these things definitively. Until we do, we should not blithely give the government carte blanche. This is not paranoia but simple prudence.
Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.