Geoff Stone, Obama's Review Group

[John Young]

Stone's is a good statement which correctly places responsibility
on three-branch policy and oversight of NSA, a military unit obliged
to obey command of civilians however bizarre and politically self-serving.

ODNI and NSA have been inviting a series of critics and journalists
to discussions. Most have resulted in statements similar to
Stone's. No such discussions were held after 9/11.

Incorrect to compare NSA to rogue, dirty work, civilian-led CIA
which will attack the three branches if riled. That is the blackmail
looming since 1947.

Greater public oversight of the three-branches is needed, for they
are the rogue, dirty work, civilian-led three LS, protecty by highest
secrecy.

If this can be helped by these invited discussions and statements,
that would be a true advance beyond mere futile debate so far
generated by shallow journalisitic reporting and polemics.

Release of far more of Snowden's documents will be needed
for this to happen, hopefully the whole wad by a means that will
put the technology in the hands of those who can understand
it. So far, the journalists have released only the most useful
to arouse indignation and refuse to release what could make
a lasting difference. Not that journalists should be expected
to make a lasting difference.





At 10:56 PM 4/2/2014, you wrote:

>[ disclaimer, Geoff Stone is a friend of mine ]
>
>
>www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/what-i-told-the-nsa_b_5065447.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
>
>What I Told the NSA
>
>    Because of my service on the President's Review Group last fall,
>    which made recommendations to the president about NSA surveillance
>    and related issues, the NSA invited me to speak today to the NSA
>    staff at the NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, about my
>    work on the Review Group and my perceptions of the NSA. Here,
>    in brief, is what I told them:
>
>      From the outset, I approached my responsibilities as a member
>      of the Review Group with great skepticism about the NSA. I am
>      a long-time civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory
>      Council of the ACLU, and a former Chair of the Board of the
>      American Constitution Society. To say I was skeptical about
>      the NSA is, in truth, an understatement.
>
>      I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of
>      the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find
>      that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots
>      against the United States and its allies in the years since
>      9/11, but I also found that it is an organization that operates
>      with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the
>      rule of law.
>
>      Like any organization dealing with extremely complex issues,
>      the NSA on occasion made mistakes in the implementation of its
>      authorities, but it invariably reported those mistakes upon
>      discovering them and worked conscientiously to correct its
>      errors. The Review Group found no evidence that the NSA had
>      knowingly or intentionally engaged in unlawful or unauthorized
>      activity. To the contrary, it has put in place carefully-crafted
>      internal proceduresto ensure that it operates within the bounds
>      of its lawful authority.
>
>      This is not to say that the NSA should have had all of the
>      authorities it was given. The Review Group found that many of
>      the programs undertaken by the NSA were highly problematic and
>      much in need of reform. But the responsibility for directing
>      the NSA to carry out those programs rests not with the NSA,
>      but with the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Foreign
>      Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized those programs
>      -- sometimes without sufficient attention to the dangers they
>      posed to privacy and civil liberties. The NSA did its job --
>      it implemented the authorities it was given.
>
>      It gradually became apparent to me that in the months after
>      Edward Snowden began releasing information about the government's
>      foreign intelligence surveillance activities, the NSA was being
>      severely -- and unfairly -- demonized by its critics. Rather
>      than being a rogue agency that was running amok in disregard
>      of the Constitution and laws of the United States, the NSA was
>      doing its job.  It pained me to realize that the hard-working,
>      dedicated, patriotic employees of the NSA, who were often
>      working for far less pay than they could have earned in the
>      private sector because they were determined to help protect
>      their nation from attack, were being castigated in the press
>      for the serious mistakes made, not by them, but by Presidents,
>      the Congress, and the courts.
>
>      Of course, "I was only following orders" is not always an
>      excuse.  But in no instance was the NSA implementing a program
>      that was so clearly illegal or unconstitutional that it would
>      have been justified in refusing to perform the functions
>      assigned to it by Congress, the President, and the Judiciary.
>      Although the Review Group found that many of those programs
>      need serious re-examination and reform, none of them was so
>      clearly unlawful that it would have been appropriate for the
>      NSA to refuse to fulfill its responsibilities.
>
>      Moreover, to the NSA's credit, it was always willing to engage
>      the Review Group in serious and candid discussions about the
>      merits of its programs, their deficiencies, and the ways in
>      which those programs could be improved. Unlike some other
>      entities in the intelligence community and in Congress, the
>      leaders of the NSA were not reflexively defensive, but were
>      forthright, engaged, and open to often sharp questions about
>      the nature and implementation of its programs.
>
>      To be clear, I am not saying that citizens should trust the
>      NSA.  They should not. Distrust is essential to effective
>      democratic governance. The NSA should be subject to constant
>      and rigorous review, oversight, scrutiny, and checks and
>      balances. The work it does, however important to the safety
>      of the nation, necessarily poses grave dangers to fundamental
>      American values, particularly if its work is abused by persons
>      in positions of authority. If anything, oversight of the NSA
>      -- especially by Congress -- should be strengthened. The future
>      of our nation depends not only on the NSA doing its job, but
>      also on the existence of clear, definitive, and carefully
>      enforced rules and restrictions governing its activities.
>
>      In short, I found, to my surprise, that the NSA deserves the
>      respect and appreciation of the American people. But it should
>      never, ever, be trusted.