3 views on NSA reform after Snowden leaks

After former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA's extensive gathering of phone and Internet data, many Americans were outraged at the perceived overstep and demanded change. Others have defended the surveillance as necessary for American security. The leaks have prompted President Obama and Congress to consider reforms to the NSA and data-gathering process.

In this One Minute Debate, three writers give their take on NSA surveillance and reforms. On one side, John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former US ambassador to the United Nations, warns that NSA capabilities and needed secrecy should not be curtailed. On the other hand, Elizabeth Goitein, codirector of the Liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, argues that greater transparency is needed and the law authorizing NSA surveillance must be changed. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) of Connecticut takes a third view: Reform the FISA court that authorizes NSA surveillance.

1. Don't overreact: Anger over abuses must not harm NSA capabilities, secrecy

The Guardian/AP/File
Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is pictured here in Hong Kong June 9. The Senate Intelligence Committee is holding a hearing today to discuss a bill that would implement changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

For years, America's enemies have yearned to cripple its foreign electronic intelligence-gathering capabilities. Now, the ongoing furor over the National Security Agency (NSA) gives them the chance. Outright falsehoods, distortions, and hysteria have unfortunately been fueled by actual abuses and mistakes.

We face a general debate about whether vital electronic-surveillance programs should be substantially curtailed. We must prevent hype and anger over specific abuses from harming the NSA's actual capabilities and the secrecy needed to protect them.

Intelligence exists not for its own sake but to support executive decisionmaking. Accordingly, President Obama is principally responsible for explaining and advocating clandestine activities. This, he appallingly failed to do. Mr. Obama must act like a president, leading the defense of our embattled capabilities.

The inevitable congressional proceedings must not repeat the irreparable damage that the 1970s-era congressional investigative committees caused the CIA. Deficiencies there were, but our enemies were the principal beneficiaries of the committees' destructive investigations.

Most important, whatever fixes are made today must not deny America the tools to protect itself from terrorists, their state sponsors, and foreign adversaries, many of which are developing massive cyberwarfare programs. Moreover, the largely preventable or imaginary invasions of privacy pale before security breakdowns that have allowed serious intelligence leaks.

The NSA's opponents should be put on notice: If you materially restrict surveillance capabilities, you risk having American blood on your hands.

Yes, stop the abuses, increase constitutional oversight, tighten NSA security, and demand accountability. But do not render America deaf and blind.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as US ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06.


1 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.