Our nation is stronger when we understand the government's actions, the author writes. It's time to debate NSA program

Every day, it seems, brings disturbing new revelations about the National Security Agency’s program to collect phone and email metadata, raising serious questions for our country. Reports indicate that the NSA is gathering metadata on millions of people in the United States and around the world, targeting diplomatic missions of both friends and foes.

The NSA’s metadata program was put into place with virtually no public debate, a worrisome precedent made worse by erecting unnecessary barriers to public understanding via denials and misleading statements from senior administration officials.


When the Congress and the courts work in secret; when massive amounts of data are collected from Americans and enterprises; when government’s power of intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens, augmented by the awesome power of advanced technologies, is hugely expanded without public debate or discussion over seven years, then our sense of constitutional process and accountability is deeply offended.

Officials insist that the right balance has been struck between security and privacy. But how would we know, when all the decisions have been made in secret, with almost no oversight?

Much of this surveillance activity raises sharp questions: Is it necessary to collect and preserve this vast amount of data rather than pursue targeted individuals? Is the government using the least intrusive means to protect us? What are the rules for using metadata collected ostensibly for counterterrorism purposes in other contexts? Could more information about the program’s reach have been made available earlier? These and other vital questions must be debated in the open.

A fundamental duty of our government is to keep the country safe. Spying and surveillance are instruments of national power that have an important place in U.S. national security, as the threat of terrorism is real and lethal. It is not the surveillance program per se that is concerning; we agree that authorized and monitored surveillance is necessary. It is the sheer magnitude of the program and the lack of debate that worry us.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, security officials were galvanized by the fear of another mass casualty attack. The pendulum swung in the direction of security over privacy, giving rise to the NSA surveillance program. The terror threat has evolved over the years. We need to examine these programs and determine whether their scope is necessary today.

When the government is exercising powers that may impinge on our rights, even when justified as measures essential for national security, we must be alert. Government, once granted authority, rarely relinquishes it and often expands it. Even if its actions are well intentioned, we must consider the precedent of expansive government power to be used 10, 20 or 50 years hence, when the justification may be less compelling than safeguarding lives.

The administration says the program is tightly controlled, but unilateral executive branch action and assurances are not sufficient; we need constitutional checks and balances. The extremely low rate of denial of warrant requests and the fact that in the hearings only the government’s side is presented are troubling. The public would benefit from a better, more detailed understanding of the judiciary process.

The Congress, the courts and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which the 9/11 Commission recommended, each have critically important roles to play. This board is essential to balancing the impact of the government’s security measures in the aftermath of Sept. 11 with our civil liberties. It has taken a decade to get the board up and running. Now that the Senate has confirmed a chairman, it is time for the board to get to work in a transparent manner on this surveillance program.

We are stronger as a nation when we understand what the government is doing. This does not mean sharing sensitive intelligence with the public. A public debate poses challenges when it involves classified information that dribbles out, obfuscated by misinformation. But there is certainly far more we can discuss openly.

President Barack Obama has rightly called for a national discussion, which his administration and Congress should convene. It is unfortunate that this conversation begins only when an unauthorized leaker divulges secrets he has agreed, under penalty of law, to keep. But the issues are now before the public. It is time to trust the American people’s judgment about where to strike the balance between what is, after all, their security and their freedom.

Thomas Kean, former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a former congressman from Indiana, co-chair the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Homeland Security Project. Kean was chairman and Hamilton was vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

This article tagged under: Opinion

NSA