At this point, I don't even know whether we can garner enough support for an initiative like this -- first from the People -- and then in Congress. And then at the White House. But I do know we've got to try.
There is no disagreement in America right now outside of stereotypical anarchists and the most libertarian wing of the libertarian party about whether national security is essential for our country. It is. We all want to be safe in the normal daily course of our lives. Where the controversy lies is in both how much transparency should be required in the disclosure of the tactics our government's uses to keep us safe, and how our tax money is spent in the pursuit of reasonable public safety. But we cannot decide through debate whether we want Congress to spend our tax money enabling secrecy when no secrecy is necessary to keep us safe -- if we don't know how much secrecy is involved in the process. Bad things tend to manifest in the shadows. We don't need any more bad things. There's already enough of those in Washington and on Wall Street.
We need a solid set of principles regarding government secrecy.
The Principles on National Security and the Right to Know were generated by an international group of scholars, government officials, activists and others convened by the Open Society Justice Initiative in an attempt to define a global consensus on national security secrecy and to aid legislators and citizens around the world who may be new to the subject.
President Obama says he "Welcomes the debate." How about we start here.
The story is at Secrecy News. (the FAS Project on Government Secrecy)
The Principles present guidance on specific types of information that the drafters believe may legitimately be withheld from disclosure on national security grounds (e.g. current war plans), as well as categories of information that should not be withheld on national security grounds “in any circumstances” (e.g. information on gross violations of human rights).
The Principles are the product of an international initiative, and they are not the same as U.S. policy writ large. In fact, some of the Principles are inconsistent with current U.S. government practice.
Ya think?
One of those aforementioned principles would eliminate the use of secret interpretations of law in the process and conduct of intelligence surveillance.
Principle (10E)
“The overall legal framework concerning surveillance of all kinds, as well as the procedures to be followed for authorizing surveillance, selecting targets of surveillance, and using, sharing, storing, and destroying intercepted material, should be accessible to the public.”
Strong protections would be provided to persons who disclose publicly wrongdoing by the government involving classified information. (under certain specified conditions)
Principle (40)
The tools of transparency can be used to attack an open society– by infringing on personal privacy, by violating confidentiality in the exercise of religious freedom or free association, or by making sensitive military or intelligence data available to violent fundamentalist adversaries. But in a briefing paper, the drafters of the Principles disavow such actions.
“The aim of the Principles is not absolute or radical transparency. The Principles, in keeping with international law, recognize that the right of access to information may be limited by other important interests including international relations, public order, public health and safety, law enforcement, future provision of free and open advice, effective policy formulation, economic interests of the state, personal privacy and commercial confidentiality.”
Here's the full document:
The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (The Tshwane Principles) This is a 35-page PDF file.
The Principles were developed in response to a wave of global interest in open government, the drafters said.
“In 1989, only 13 countries had access to information laws on their books. As of June 2013, 94 countries have such laws, granting the right of access to information, at least in theory, to more than 5.2 billion people in all parts of the world. People in these countries are, many for the first time, grappling with how to keep information confidential pursuant to law rather than by culture or executive discretion.”
The ultimate hope of the drafters lies in how...
“... the Principles will influence the development and reform of laws and policies in countries that aspire to comply, and to be seen by the international community to comply, with international law.”
The senior adviser to the
Open Society Foundations adds this...
“As societies deal with the continuing conflict between the right to know and claims of national security, as well as how to evaluate acts of whistleblowers, these Principles will provide a compelling guide grounded in experience and a deep commitment to the values of open society.”
I don't have any false expectations that we can or will tear down this massive empire of data collection. After untold billions and eight years of construction on an unprecedented scale there's no going back. But the U.S. cannot be the sole master arbitrator and manager of the personal data of every man, woman and child on the planet. Keith Alexander cannot be the sole "decider." No matter how much
power he's amassed over the past decade.
Barack Obama might want to protect America with these programs but power is intoxicating. And it's bound to corrupt. All it takes is one misguided officeholder and those "protections" will fall apart in a heartbeat. As far as Obama goes, there's a reason why he didn't call for the debate he supposedly wanted all the time he's been in office. And until he fesses up to that fact everything about these programs remains suspect. That's why absolute full disclosure of every aspect of these programs is necessary. And that includes the FISC court rulings, the real number of FISA requests, and a full review of the Patriot Act and any other applicable legislation used to justify the programs must be conducted in full view of the country to make sure they actually comply with the U.S. Constitution. Maybe the FISC court needs to be brought out in the sunshine. Both investigators and judges always have the tools of redaction to keep both the operational processes out of the public domain, and keep the subjects of the request anonymous.
The burden of proof must always be on the ones making the requests.