I chose to focus on the piece by Timothy
Burke, The Slow Poison of the Covert
Imagination. It was interesting to read Burke’s views on the revealing of
surveillance by the NSA because he presents the issue at hand but then portrays
it well on a larger scale. By that, more specifically, I mean that he is able
to argue very well why the surveillance that we are facing by the NSA is
essentially going against the very principles that the United States stands
for. However, my argument is that we in fact are benefitting from the
surveillance by the NSA.
Burke makes his point very clear, “the
U.S. Constitution proposes two ideas in particular: that the actions of the
governmental institutions draw not just from the consent but the participation
of the people.” This statement I do agree with, our country is certainly based
off of the idea of a government for the people and by the people. I do not
agree with the idea that the people need to fully participate in all aspects of
the government when it pertains to national security. Matters of national
security are classified for a reason, that reason being that it is for the
people’s own safety. We do not question a highly classified Navy Seals operation
because ultimately we know that it will benefit the United States and that it
is for everyone’s safety that it remains top secret. Now it is clear that this
is an entirely different scenario, one in which it could be argued that our
right to privacy is being infringed upon. Burke proceeds to say that, “that government should never, ever be able to
claim power and simply say, ‘Trust us’.” While this is true, this is not the
purpose or goal of the NSA surveillance program. A program such as this may in
fact infringe upon our privacy rights, but we are not the “targets” of the
program. While there is access to our personal content, this is not the focus
of the program. It is not merely a program to offer government employees with
the chance to listen in on every day Americans’ conversations or view their
activities. Just recently it was revealed that this surveillance aided in
preventing an attack on the U.S. Capitol. This is a great example of what a
program like this can do. So while Burke believes that, “we become like people
who can’t play a game without a hint sheet and a speed hack,” we are being
protected.
Burke’s overall tone is very evident, “Oh,
perhaps you stop a plot here, sabotage a facility there, play a gambit, steal a
plan. But the episodes that change the lives of nations and individuals for the
long haul, the seismic shifts in social power and economic life?” However, a
small “plot” saves many lives. The surveillance program recently saved the
United States Capitol and all of those that work there. It saved the very
building that represents our democracy, a building that allows officials
elected by the people to create laws. So while Burke mentions stopping a plot
or sabotaging a facility “there,” many lives are being saved. I believe that the
purpose a program like this is to protect the American people, and if it
accomplishes that very goal then it serves it’s purpose. Terrorists are not
plotting their attacks out in the open, they are doing so in secret; therefore
surveillance is needed and proved to be efficient.
I think that Burke is looking at a much larger issue rather than just the NSA eavesdropping one. Burke sees an issue across government that allows it to hide and not own up to covert operations. This can be good or bad as he mentions. But what he focuses on more is that by hiding something gone wrong, such as drone strikes, there can be a large probability that is can cause a much larger issue. Your Capitol example is a good one, but I don't think it relates to this. What happened in that case was by the law and through the methods to protect abuse, it didn't involve unassigned phone taps and other procedures that could be hidden from the public.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a distinction here behind whether 'trust us' is the purpose or goal of the NSA program or whether it is the "shield" meant to protect its abuses from the eyes of its citizens. Do you think it possible that the program could be more transparent and still effective? How important is secrecy to the success of intelligence programs? Many argue that maybe the NSA doesn't have to tell us what it is doing and who exactly it is following but it could let us know what data it si collecting the the general purpose of that collection. These people would say that it isn't as if the US enemies can't imagine that the US can track their phones if it ever got wind of what they were doing.
ReplyDeleteSarah you offered a very well written argument against Burke's article. I completely agree with you, the public does not necessarily need to have complete disclosure to everything the government is doing. While I can understand why many are so bothered by the NSA's invasion of privacy, I can also view it as A) from a utilitarianism point of view, in which it is for the greater view and B) as you say, they are not targeting everyone. If the government were to disclose on all their surveillance operations, they would lose any and all advantages gained. Therefore practically allowing terrorist free reign into all our national security.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that since something such as a drone strike can be hidden it could develop into a much larger one is one that I agree with. However, at the same time to your point Professor Shirk, I do think that it is crucial for an intelligence program such as this one to maintain secrecy in order to be effective. Intelligence officials work in that capacity for a reason, the general public may not be able to understand fully the benefits of a program such as this because again the public does not know the full picture either. I do not think that a program like this would be more successful if it were more transparent. I agree with your point Angella that if the government were to disclose they just wouldn't have the advantage that the program has been put in the first place for.
ReplyDelete