Snowden short-circuits needed NSA debate: Our view

The Editorial Board | USATODAY

When Edward Snowden alerted the public last month to secret government programs that threaten to trample Americans' privacy, he cast himself as a heroic, self-sacrificing whistle-blower. His leaks were selective, the recipients were responsible news organizations.

But since fleeing the United States for Hong Kong, getting stuck in a drab no man's land in the Moscow airport and casting about the world for asylum, Snowden has looked more like a desperate man bent on revenge against his native country.

Facing charges of espionage, he has allied himself with the publish-anything WikiLeaks website, and he has spilled additional beans — about U.S. hacking into Chinese computers and spying on its European allies — that do more to embarrass the United States than to protect its citizens' civil liberties.

Snowden's self-destructive mystery tour does more than tarnish his image. It threatens to short-circuit the useful debate sparked by his original revelations. The government can use the flawed messenger to divert attention from his alarming message about two National Security Agency programs, one that targets the contents of foreign e-mails, at times sweeping in messages from Americans, and another that vacuums up domestic phone records by the billions.

Of the two programs, the compilation of phone "metadata" is the more troubling and subject to abuse. It warrants tough questions, closer scrutiny and new legal limits. But ever since its disclosure, the Obama administration has underplayed the program's reach by focusing on what it doesn't do — listen in on calls — and overplayed its effectiveness.

One prime example: The administration says it needs everyone's phone records. But the NSA "queried" the data fewer than 300 times last year.

Top officials testified at a House intelligence hearing June 18 that before each query, the government needs "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the number being checked has a connection to a terrorist organization. Because this is all the government needs to subpoena records from a phone company, why not use that far less intrusive method?

NSA Director Keith Alexander told the hearing his agency is "going to look at that," but added that the "concern is speed in crisis." He didn't elaborate. Nor did anyone from the congenial panel press him.

In fact, having backed the vacuum-cleaner approach in the first place, most everyone in Congress who oversees national security now has a stake in defending it. The admirable exceptions are Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, who have tried to raise alarms since last year. More recently, they've been joined by two dozen senators who are beginning to ask tough questions.

The two programs have helped disrupt "potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11," Alexander told the House panel. But dig a little deeper, and it's the e-mail program — which is less intrusive and focused on foreign terror suspects — that has been most effective, helping to thwart 53 of 54 events.

The massive phone database? Not so much. It "contributed to our overall understanding and help to the FBI" in 12 events, Alexander said in a speech last week.

President Obama says he welcomes a debate on balancing security and privacy. But an honest debate isn't possible when top officials, who hold all the cards, continue to muddle facts and dodge direct answers.

Snowden's antics aren't reason to let them get away with it.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.