NSA boss: "A lot of things aren't clearly legal, but that doesn't make them illegal"

[kpete]

"Alexander tended to be a bit of a cowboy: 'Let's not worry about the law. Let's just figure out how to get the job done,

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/08/the_cowboy_of_the_nsa_keith_alexander?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full


General Alexander apparently has no problem playing word games to justify what he wants. This shouldn't be a surprise given all we've seen so far, but from the article, you realize that this isn't just someone trying to keep secret things secret with word games, but rather someone who has a rather Machiavellian outlook on things. He decides what he wants to do, and then he'll come up with the justification for it.

"He said at one point that a lot of things aren't clearly legal, but that doesn't make them illegal," says a former military intelligence officer who served under Alexander at INSCOM.

That's not something that someone trying to stay inside the law says. That's someone trying to stretch the law to do his personal will.

General Alexander is obsessed with collecting every bit of data possible, with little concern for the legal issues associated with such a desire. This one isn't new. We'd already seen that Alexander's infamous mantra was "collect it all," but the FP article shows this going to ridiculous lengths:

"Hayden's attitude was 'Yes, we have the technological capability, but should we use it?' Keith's was 'We have the capability, so let's use it,'" says the former intelligence official who worked with both men.

............................

Later in the article, someone who worked with General Alexander notes that he believes the legal justifications for any data collection can come later:

"If he becomes the repository for all that data, he thinks the resources and authorities will follow."

........

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/09/profile-of-nsa-boss-keith-alexander-reveals-he-wants-all-the-data-and-he-doesnt-care-about-the-law/

[tularetom]

1. That's almost as good as "If the President does it, that means it is not illegal"

[exboyfil]

2. George Orwell was right

Our government has become completely unhinged. Between this and when a war is not a war I feel like I am trapped in the world of 1984.

[grasswire]

5. Orwell was an optimist, apparently

It's even worse than he prophesied.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. I'll expect your resignation on my desk first thing in the morning. n/t

[Phlem]

4. This is one insane, scary,

psychopath and they gave him the keys.

-p

[grasswire]

6. yeah, and he has his own military forces.

And a dossier available on each one of us.

[Pholus]

7. Okay, if it is "inevitable" then its past time that the information flowed both ways...

The relationship between the governing and the governed is abusive at this point. There is an information and power differential once this is codified.

Maybe it's made me fatalistic in a David Brin kind of way. If we're going to forced into this "no worries if you have nothing to hide" relationship, it is only fair that this be a two way street. Certainly I resent paying the pervert spying on me, but perhaps I'd feel better if I could get some information in return.

I propose a law that elected public servants have no right to privacy while they are in office doing the business of the people. Their constituents have a right to know the contents of their emails, their texts, their phone calls, or whatever other "metadata" can be attached to them while they are in office. It is a vital part of understanding the representation we have gotten for our votes and it is demonstrably in the interests of the people for them to gain insight into the motivations of their representatives.

If this surveillance stuff is good for the goose, it is good for the gander too. Certainly, politicians have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide. Personally I think it's highly relevant to know what lobbyist contacted what politician when -- up to now I have to wait to see what high-paying job the politician lands after office to figure out who used to own them and at that point the damage has already been done.

If this is about protecting lives, just think how many people are affected by health care, pensions or crime bills. Far more lives are on the line than have been lost to terrorism in any case. So if the terrorism argument about saving lives works, it works here too.

The alternative is perhaps we should get some context back and decide that while you can do all these things technologically, perhaps there is a reason why you should not.

[Heywood J]

8. Each department and agency needs to be clearly

fenced from the beginning, and regular open reviews of scope, practice and management need to be conducted. Every policy should be periodically reviewed to see if it continues to achieve the original stated purpose, whether it should be kept, updated, or scrapped. That seems to have gone by the wayside.