The Ousting Of Trump's National Security Advisor Shows Just How Dangerous 'Lawful' Domestic Surveillance Is
from the we-got-dirt-on-millions-of-Americans dept
Those who thought the domestic surveillance Ed Snowden exposed was perfectly acceptable and lawful are finding it much harder to stomach with Trump in charge. The Lawfare blog, which routinely hosts articles supportive of government surveillance activities, has taken on a new tone over the past few months. The lesson being learned: if a power can only be trusted in certain people's hands, then it really can't be trusted in anyone's. This belated realization is better than none, but one wonders if the drastic change in tone would have followed an election that put Hillary Clinton in the White House.
That's not to say the first month of Trump's presidency has borne any resemblance to a "peaceful transition of power." The federal government isn't just leaking. It's hemorrhaging. Underneath the recent ouster of Mike Flynn, Trump's former National Security Advisor, is something disturbing.
What's disturbing isn't the surveillance -- although in "normal" circumstances it might be. Flynn was dumped because recorded phone calls captured him discussing sanctions with Russian officials. This domestic surveillance isn't unheard of. The fact that this information -- including the content of the calls -- was leaked to the public is more notable.
Calls to foreign officials are fair game for US surveillance efforts. The last-minute removal of restraints on sharing unminimized US persons data/communications by the Obama administration just served to ensure Flynn's calls would end up in the hands of multiple federal agencies. The timing of the loosened restrictions is worth noting though, as Marcy Wheeler does in this post about the Flynn ouster.
Finally, remember that for a great deal of SIGINT, FBI wouldn’t need a warrant. That’s because Obama changed the EO 12333 sharing rules just 4 days after the IC started getting really suspicious about Flynn’s contacts with Russia. That would make five years of intercepts available to FBI without a warrant in any counterintelligence cases, as this one is.
But what Lawfare's Adam Klein is concerned with isn't the sharing of unminimized communications between agencies. As he points out in his post, all of that's perfectly legal. What he's more concerned with is the actions of the intelligence community, which has made all of this public.
[T]his case illustrates why surveillance law treats U.S.-person information with the same healthy fear we associate with nuclear waste and biohazard material—that is, with the vigilance reserved for things that are inherently dangerous if not closely guarded. As Eli Lake wrote this week in Bloomberg View, selective leaking of U.S.-person information “gives the permanent state” (or political appointees entrusted with the information) “the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity.” Even if not leaked to the press, such information can be misused: J. Edgar Hoover and his subordinates infamously used salacious information gleaned from FBI surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr., to pressure King to retreat from public life.
That's what's happening and that's a cause for concern. The NSA and others have always had these powers, but we were assured they wouldn't be abused. In this case, the abuse isn't in the collection or dissemination (all of it now "lawful"), but in the use of leaked information to kick out a National Security Advisor.
Trump has made few friends in the intelligence community since he became president, comparing the CIA to Nazis and making comments about unprofessional behavior. The problem for Trump is he's fighting with agencies particularly well-armed to take him down. But that's not what we want from our intelligence agencies. They're not tools of government accountability. They're tools for totalitarianism restrained only by oversight and a rigorous set of rules. (I mean, in theory...) But the IC appears to be ignoring the checks and balances put in place to guard against the destruction of the government's head by its body.
It's one thing to cheer for the public flailing of a President you don't like. It's quite another to cheer on the dangerous, easily-abusable network of domestic surveillance that makes it possible.
So, the issue here is more the leaks than the surveillance. The surveillance has its own problems, but the willingness to leak information damaging to US persons -- even if it prevented someone who possibly shouldn't be a National Security Advisor from keeping his job -- is a disturbing indicator of just how much power these agencies (at least 16 of them) now wield, thanks to information sharing.
The other problem is the hypocritical way Trump and his supporters are dealing with the leaked info. Trump wants an investigation to uncover the source of the leaks. Fair enough (albeit somewhat hypocritical, given his love of Wikileaks...). But the House Oversight Committee and Trump himself have no interest in taking a deeper look into the allegations against Mike Flynn. Nonsensically, House Oversight Committee head Devin Nunes said the recording of the phone calls was itself "disturbing." This is something someone involved in intelligence oversight should already know is a perfectly lawful interception under statutes he helps shape and define.
It's a dangerous time to be a whistleblower, as the administration appears far more interested in going after leaks it doesn't like than potentially-illegal behavior by its own staff. And it's just as dangerous to be the target of intelligence committee animosity. No more dangerous than it's always been, but in recent days, we've been given a pretty clear picture of how quickly lawful surveillance can ruin a person's life.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abuse, domestic surveillance, mike flynn, nsa, politics, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awareness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awareness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Awareness
Which part? That Mr. Flynn thought that his actions were above reproach or that he thought that being above reproach would protect him?
I have not listened/read what was said on the calls, so I do not know if what he said actually is above reproach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Awareness
What we do know is the law was broken when they leaked this info to the public, which makes it logical to investigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awareness
Agreed, but there's a gray area between "above political reproach" and actual legal wrongdoing. If he said the word sanctions, or it was said and he should have heard it, some would argue that "sanctions were discussed on the call." While technically true, and that would technically make his later statements to VP Pence false, there is a gulf between the situation that sanctions were mentioned in passing and the situation that sanctions were discussed with any expectation that something would change. I think of it as the difference between "Nice weather we've having today / Yes, it is" and "We would appreciate if you would help us prepare for the incoming flood / I'll try to get some supplies ready." The former is small talk that no one realistically expects to mean much and is easily forgotten. The latter represents a request for action and an offer to take action.
If Mr. Flynn engaged in the former, he could've easily forgotten the small talk and thought he was speaking truthfully when he told VP Pence that sanctions were not discussed. However, particularly for partisan political purposes, even the former could be (mis)characterized as "He talked about the weather and then later said he never talked about the weather."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Awareness
Conspicuous in its absence, I assume you are implying that no laws were broken in the making of that call - which is quite wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's just rude!
Another possibility is that he was aware of it but figured that as part of the club his communications wouldn't be under surveillance.
Remember for example Feinstein, who saw absolutely nothing wrong with the public being under the microscope but threw a fit when it turned out that someone was watching her.
Indiscriminate spying on the public is one thing, but doing that to members of the government, why that's just uncalled for!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
another hit piece against potus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, if Sean Spicer says it, it must be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is the problem, everyone is fine with everything as long as it fits in their agenda or their political party dogma.
I take exception to that. I find the level of surveillance quite objectionable be it from Bush, Obama, Clinton, Trump, or little green men from mars. I do not know anyone of some level of mental competence that doesn't, though I do detect their spoor on line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one gives a real fuck about liberty or government corruption. Just as the declaration of independence says, people are disposed to suffering injustices while they are sufferable, and wouldn't you just know it that republicans care more about putting innocents in private prisons than fighting asset forfeiture (government THEFT) and democrats care more about getting women free birth control than doing something to free jailed innocents.
Both parties and groups 'talk' a good game, but when they get into power, the debt usually goes up and pork is so plentiful that the peasants slip and fall prone so often that businesses and the political elite can get a proverbial "quickie" anytime they need from the poor saps.
And any citizen asking why the elite get to have so much at their expense the ole "class warfare" line is trotted out for a dog and pony show.
People don't give a shit... they just want theirs and to hell with the rest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But yeah, do continue with your pity party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=deep%20state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/mar/15/comment.labour1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's the problem I have with -isms in general; when they're treated as more rule than guideline they're too rigid to tweak so they work in our favour — and we're expected to work in theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an alarming situation, regardless of your politics. In a battle between Trump and the CIA, the loser is the American public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Retreat from public life" is a hell of a euphemism for suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, I wonder what changed his mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He hasn't changed. He still likes WikiLeaks. These leaks aren't being done through a well known and respected leaking organization like WikiLeaks, which is why these leaks are bad and leaks published by WikiLeaks are good. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The leaks are real, the news is fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He was like a high school guy who "Loves" his girlfriend, as long as she puts-out.
She stopped giving him the sensational poon, he stopped "Loving" her...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that illegal? I don't think so, but it does infringe on the "one president at a time" tradition.
Trump doesn't seem to mind going against tradition, as his statements condemning the US refusal to veto the Israel UN wording showed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With open borders, Russians should just be able to walk the fuck in and open fire. Easy win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oliver north
we are so far past anything that resembles the rule of law and equal treatment none of you must have been paying attention for at least 30 years, if your in the right gang your fine if not your not, gang violence in this context isn't drive by's it's whole countries decimated and millions dead, it's just that it's going to come home to the people that allowed it in the first place, the American people, Karma's a bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe playing devils advocate here..
The best thing to hope for here is that this will be a brute force awakening for many people so wiser choices can be made in the future, instead of the latest decades.
One can hope, but I fear that the chance is higher that nobody will have learned anything in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe playing devils advocate here..
Until then we are still undergoing trials. We might fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smoke, Mirrors and Anonymous Whisper Campaigns - Oh My!
But the House Oversight Committee and Trump himself have no interest in taking a deeper look into the allegations against Mike Flynn.
And what are the allegations?
That Flynn was speaking with the Russian ambassador around the time the Obama syndicate was nonsensically levying new sanctions on Russian persons, declaring dozens of other Russians persona non grata, deploying an armored brigade with thousands of soldiers on Russia's door step all the while our NATO allies were rattling their sabres in response to non-existent Russian aggression?
Flynn was doing his job. If he was not reaching out and speaking with foreign contacts as the Trump syndicate was preparing to take office he would have been negligent in his duties.
It's a dangerous time to be a whistleblower, as the administration appears far more interested in going after leaks it doesn't like than potentially-illegal behavior by its own staff.
This has absolutely nothing to do with whistle blowing. It was/is an anonymous political character assassination conducted via a whisper campaign aided and abetted by an all to pliant media looking to hamstring the incoming Trump syndicate in any way possible.
A whistle blower looks to put the interests of the nation first and foremost and liberates as much factual evidence as possible in order to shine copious amounts of sunlight onto the pitch dark underbelly of government malfeasance thus affording the once was republics citizens the ability to become knowledgeable in matters of national importance that are/were kept secret by criminals hiding behind their position within the US government.
Anonymous chair polishers (aka officials/authorities) conducting a fact free whisper campaign through their favorite stenographers in the media who then are trusted to transcribe the unsubstantiated leakers tale verbatim do not have the nations best interests at heart as they act to protect the criminals at the expense of the many.
All that has been disclosed in the media are anonymous chair polishers conducting a whisper campaign supposedly in response to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential circus and how Trump was/is a Russian stooge all based of course on zero evidence just whispers.
If the content of Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador was criminal why didn't the anonymous chair polishers leak the full unadulterated transcripts to their trusty stenographers in the media?
If there is hard evidence that Trump and members of his inner circle are Russian stooges publicly show the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke, Mirrors and Anonymous Whisper Campaigns - Oh My!
No he wasn't. Trump hadn't taken office yet.
We don't know that yet. Could be that they don't have any evidence of criminal conduct. Could be that they do but that they're waiting for an official investigation. Could be that they do and that they used it as leverage to force his resignation.
I find it very unlikely that we've heard the last of this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke, Mirrors and Anonymous Whisper Campaigns - Oh My!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Smoke, Mirrors and Anonymous Whisper Campaigns - Oh My!
I think the equivalent analogy is prospective candidate for position starts negotiating for the company on the strength that sometime soon the about-to-be CEO will become CEO and plans to give him a position that allows him to represent the company.
Although, it would seem that the National Security Advisor position is not the correct one to be talking to Ambassadors. Seems more like a Sec of State responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Smoke, Mirrors and Anonymous Whisper Campaigns - Oh My!
That's not really analogous, though, because it doesn't involve intentionally undermining a sitting President's negotiations with a foreign government.
This is more like Reagan and Bush undermining Carter's negotiations during the Iran Hostage Crisis. (Allegedly. That's never been proven; the evidence is circumstantial.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke, Mirrors and Anonymous Whisper Campaigns - Oh My!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smoke, Mirrors and Anonymous Whisper Campaigns - Oh My!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangerous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two way information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: followed an election that put Hillary Clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: followed an election that put Hillary Clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: followed an election that put Hillary Clinton
Nope. Just noting that TD degrades itself with lines like this. It's the same when they use the other guys name for shock and awe. Every time TD uses these persons names, the quality of the post is reduced.
It isn't about cults of personality. It is about the law. And when Americans fail to consider that, we concede a little of our right to live in a society where law is derived from reason.
If your talking about "who", chances are your bitching. If your talking about "what" or "how", chances are your arguing. I read TD because it bitches less, and argues more.
I accept the reduction in signal quality during election season. Hell I contribute to the din. But that is over now. Now it is just tainted meat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: followed an election that put Hillary Clinton
I said:
You responded:
I could respond to the rest of your gibberish post, but nah, I think we're done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, that is actually out there. What a bunch of maroons, who think that words speak louder than actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He didn't salute ... lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wait...
Perhaps Trump isn't as far off the mark as some think. And this is the kind of shake up we really need as a free society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But wait...
There is a qualitative difference between bulk surveillance and targeted surveillance.
Collecting call metadata from everyone in America is not remotely the same thing as monitoring calls to foreign governments.
Trump isn't objecting to surveillance. He's objecting to government officials talking to the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The shoe is on the other foot....
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the same people are saying "you shouldn't hold him responsible for lying, no one was supposed to find out it was a lie, so it's ok".
In my simple mind, it shouldn't work that way.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The shoe is on the other foot....
Indeed.
As I've been saying all along, the content of the leaks, the source of the leaks, and the motives of the leakers are all important. There's no contradiction there; they're not mutually exclusive.
You can absolutely believe that the Clinton leaks show ethical violations and bad judgement within the Clinton campaign and that they were leaked by Russians, sponsored by the Russian state, in an attempt to tip the election toward Trump. There is no contradiction there (and neither does this necessarily imply that the attempt was successful and that Trump wouldn't have won otherwise).
You can absolutely believe that the Flynn leaks reveal unethical and possibly illegal behavior on Flynn's part, and that they imply deeper collaboration between Trump and Russia, while also believing that the CIA is deliberately and selectively leaking information that is targeted to damage a sitting President, and that this is deeply unsettling. There's no contradiction there, either.
It's not an either-or thing. You don't have to pick a side between Clinton and Trump, Clinton and the Russian government, Trump and the CIA, etc. It's entirely possible to believe that all of them are acting in their own interest and against the interests of the American people.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The shoe is on the other foot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The shoe is on the other foot....
Because determining whether or not a thing is illegal takes time, and the story isn't over yet. We've already been hearing about Trump's connections to Russia for months; the story hasn't gone away, it's intensified. Maybe this is the point where it peters out, but I'm guessing that's not the case.
There have been accusations that Flynn lied to the FBI. There have been no charges to that effect. There may be such charges in the future.
All that said, is "well, he hasn't been charged with anything" really where you draw the line for ethical behavior? If so, did you hold Hillary Clinton to that same standard when she was accused of unethical behavior but never charged with anything?
The same is true of Scooter Libby. What's your point?
Perhaps.
I think the reason Trump looks bad (well, one of them) is that people have a lot of legitimate questions about his ties to Russia and to Putin that he has not answered to their satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]