>From the looks of this speech, the NSA must have blackmailed him.
On 04/02/2014 09:56 PM, [email protected] 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. > >
