I have long been, and continue to be, a strong
supporter of Barack Obama. Evidence of
that can be found in my posts going back to early 2007, my contributions to his
two campaigns and a my share of door knocking here in this now almost
completely "red" state. Like many others, I was thrilled by yesterdays announcement that he would employ
executive powers to move aggressively forward on climate change. It is in that context that I find myself both
mystified and troubled by the Administration's record on matters of privacy, its aggressive pursuit of whistle blowers and its often-hostile relations with
the press. All of that is evident in the
Snowden Affair.
During the 2008 campaign the press often referred
to the candidate as "no drama Obama", a branding attributed to
Air Force General Tony McPeak. Unlike
many contenders for the highest office in the land, this man was cool and
controlled. If there were tensions
within, they were subdued by a leader who literally didn't tolerate what had
become a norm in the Clinton and then the McCain campaigns. Whether or not the no drama moniker fits, my
own sense is that Obama is at the core an extremely private person. That explains his still small circle of
advisors, his lack of interest in "schmoozing" with Hill folk and a
reluctance to engage often in one-on-ones with the press. Aside from several first term appearances on 60 Minutes
with Steve Kroft, it was only last week (almost five years in)
that he agreed to an extended sit down with Charlie Rose.
And it is Obama's own premium on privacy that makes
his stance on surveillance so very mystifying.
Not merely has the President carried forward a Bush/Cheney initiated program, he has both embraced and, if anything, broadened it. Doing so has largely inoculated him from
criticism on the right, but it has infuriated many of his natural supporters in
the middle and left. Even those who may
not find it infuriating, still see it as deeply disheartening, further evidence
of the right's huge influence on America's present. Democrats have long been at a disadvantage on
matters of national security and now seem to be performing cartwheels to prove
that "it just ain't so". It's
time for them to stop proving themselves.
We want to be judged by the values we protect, not the corners we cut in
the name of maintaining security.
If keeping track of what telephone numbers we're
dialing is deeply disturbing, equally so is even the slightest intrusion on
press freedom. In his Times piece
discussing NBC's David Gregory's controversial questioning of The Guardian's
Glenn Greenwald, David
Carr writes:
"If you add up the
pulling of news organization phone records (The Associated Press), the tracking
of individual reporters (Fox News), and the effort by the current
administration to go after sources (seven instances and counting in which a government
official has been criminally charged with leaking classified information to the
news media), suggesting that there is a war on the press is less
hyperbole than simple math.
... For the time being, it is us (the press) versus them (federal officials)..."
The issue here is not whether the press and government
at times (or often) find themselves adversaries — that's what a free press is
all about — but if the government is using its muscle to prevent reporters from
doing their job. There is much to
criticize about today's media, many reasons for us to have lost confidence in
them as independent observers. That
said, we all have a big stake in protecting their integrity, something that
impacts directly and deeply on our own. This includes their
right and need to protect sources.
If mystified by Obama's stand on privacy, I'm totally
at sea about the current travels of Edward Snowden. In my first post on this subject, I called
him a hero. His decision to leak
information about how our government is intruding itself on our privacy in the
name of national security is potentially a catalyst a long overdue national
discussion. In the face of others
silence, that was heroic. My fear now is
that Snowden's behavior since this story broke may be undermining the very
discussion that I had expected would ensue and that President Obama has endorsed. The behavior of the messenger (the hero) may
well get in the way.
Clearly Snowden has the right to protect himself
from prosecution. The usual course for
doing so is to engage legal counsel.
Given his many supporters, getting a first class lawyer and the
necessary funding for a defense would hardly seem a problem. But Snowden, unlike other whistle blowers,
chose to leave the country. That's
understandable. That he chose China and
now Russia as havens, albeit temporary, is to say the least curious. Leaving aside, that these were our primary
adversaries during the Cold War, neither country can be described as a
protector of either citizen privacy or of a free press. If American can be faulted in this regard,
these countries are monsters in comparison.
Dick Cheney's suggestion that Snowden might be a spy may read ludicrous,
but connecting those dots would make for an easy and credible spy novel. We know little about the former CIA employee,
but his travel itinerary certainly isn't enhancing his credibility.
None of us have any control over Mr. Snowden or know
what his next steps will be. The secrets
he laid bare are claimed to have done "irreversible
and significant damage" to the nation.
Maybe so, but at this point we don't know that to be the case. The idea that our adversaries don't know that technology is being employed as a surveillance tool is hard to
believe. We have no control over the
whistle blower or over what the government will say to defend its program or do to
prosecute him. What we can control, or
at least influence, is the critical conversation about privacy and the limits
of government intrusion. We can't allow
Snowden's odyssey to distract us. That
will be hard at a time when we as Americans seem to prefer drama to
substance. If the press really wants to
protect their own independence and freedom, here's a chance for them to show it
by keeping their eye and ours on the ball.
This time around they clearly have a vested and immediate interest in
substance, in adopting the no drama ways of the President whom they and we have
been calling to task.
Comments on the Supreme Court's three momentous decisions will follow
soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment