On June 19, 2013 Jennifer Rubin published an opinion piece
in The
Washington Post in regards to Rand Paul and his praise of Edward Snowden. The
main purpose of the piece was to discredit Paul and come down hard on the
actions of Snowden. First, she overstates the praise of Snowden by claiming “leftists
and libertarians” praise him as a “hero and a martyr.” Some have suggested his
actions are in a sense heroic, and if you take the word as meaning someone who
exhibits courage he is most definitely. As for a martyr, well given that Snowden
isn’t dead (yet), that term doesn’t really fit.
The article then goes on to quote Paul from his appearance
on Hannity on Monday, June 17. Paul talks
about how parts of the NSA spying program were already public and then goes on
to say that there are fourth amendment rights issues that need to be
considered. Then, he links Snowden to MLK for his action of civil disobedience.
Rubin then goes on to criticize Paul because not long ago
Paul was talking about how the NSA spying program (PRISM) was top secret and
didn’t have oversight, but is now saying aspects of the program were public.
This criticism is somewhat accurate; the President himself has said on numerous
occasions that data collection and the FISA court were nothing secret[1].
What wasn’t so well known was the extent of information collected on American
citizens and that this info was being stored and kept for five years at the
NSA. But, it seems inconsistent to on the one hand decry Snowden as a traitor
when our own government is telling us this information has been available to
our elected leaders.
Rubin then goes after Paul’s reference to violations of the
fourth amendment. She makes the blanket statement that “Paul’s view of the
program…is almost certainly wrong.[2]”
It doesn’t appear to be so cut and dry given the ACLU’s recent suit against the
government. According to Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the ACLU,
“The program goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act
and represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right
to privacy”[3].
Rubin seems to be relying on how the Supreme Court in the past ruled that
personal information is covered by privacy laws but not that fact that
communication happens. The problem with this is, how then does the NSA handle
this information? There needs to be some sort of data collection beyond the
phone numbers or else their only reason to get more information on a particular
phone number would be that this number called that number multiple times, or
this particular country a bunch of times. If the metadata is only phone numbers,
it’s just a mash of numbers that are meaningless. Is calling someone in Saudi
Arabia probable cause for terroristic activity and grounds for an additional
FISA court warrant to gather more information? What about corporations that
make frequent phone calls across the globe; does an NSA analyst see their phone
number then make a judgment call saying that this number called that number so
we need to access all their records? When all you have is numbers and no
additional information, as the President claims, the numbers are useless. There
needs to be some sort of assigned meaning to the information. The only way to
gather that information is to start requesting data from companies like
Facebook, Microsoft, and Google.
It is true that intelligence gathering techniques are
sensitive, but it is also important for Americans to know the truth about what
is being given to the government and it is even more important for the
government to be operating within the Constitution.
Next, Rubin attacks Paul’s comparison of Edward Snowden and
Martin Luther King’s acts of civil disobedience. This is something I can get
behind. I think that relating these two individuals together is a bit of a
stretch given the different circumstances. But, Rubin takes things way
overboard. She sees a parallel between Snowden and Julius Rosenberg, a man who
was executed for leaking nuclear technology to the Soviet Union[4].
Okay, let’s look at her analogy and see if it fits. Snowden leaked information
to the media about a NSA spying program that was already in part public
knowledge. It was given to the Guardian
and has been expanded upon due to new interviews. Rosenberg and his wife gave military
weapons technology to the Soviet Union, including information on the Manhattan
Project. Also, according to the LA Times, the Rosenbergs “succeeded in handing
over top military data on sonar and on radar that was used by the Russians to
shoot down American planes in the Korean and Vietnam wars”[5].
Rubin relates these together by saying “Snowden [sic] didn’t deliver U.S. secrets to al-Qaeda operatives directly,
but rather put them out into the worldwide media for all to see. The method may
be different, but the crime is the same.” Seriously! How is this crime the
same? The method with which it was given and the content delivered was totally
different. The Rosenbergs delivered military technology that was used to kill
Americans, technology with the capability of destroying entire cities. The
Rosenbergs were confirmed Soviet spies! Snowden told the public that the NSA is
collecting metadata on phone records and have the ability to dig up the rest of
your records if they choose. One involves surveillance and the other
destruction and American lives lost. Rubin then caps it off by saying, “Frankly,
this lark by Paul is way nuttier than most of what his father said and did.” But
his father, Ron Paul, has been criticizing the administration and giving thanks
for the actions of Snowden[6]!
This belief that revealing the metadata collection program
and the NSA’s ability to access personal information from various companies
will give the upper hand to terrorists seems ridiculous. I highly doubt
terrorists in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan are communicating their plans over
Verizon phones, or broadcasting this information on their Facebook pages. These
people surely know firsthand that their actions are being watched at all times
and know to be careful. Also, the issue isn’t about spying and gathering
intelligence on terrorists abroad, it’s about obtaining thousands of records on
Americans.
Rubin’s take on Snowden and Paul are way off base. With the
outrage from the right and left over spying, it doesn’t make sense to single
out only Paul. Given the fact that Rubin ends her article with a reference to
Paul seeking presidential election, and then criticizing how he reads the Constitution,
there appears to be an ulterior motive.
This is a smear piece against someone who has gathered a significant
following since he came to office and is challenging the Republican
establishment. The benefit of having someone such as Paul leading the executive
branch is that he actually believes in freedom and limited government. It seems
like all politicians who come to office run on these fundamental ideals; and
then when they hit the beltway, all is lost. We can only be thankful for men
like Rand Paul who are able to stick to their guns amidst torrents of criticism
like we see from journalists like Rubin.
No comments:
Post a Comment