Another Former NSA Lawyer Says He Wouldn't Have Listened To Concerns About The Agency's Surveillance Programs

from the blow-that-whistle-all-you-want,-there's-no-one-around-for-miles! dept

Frontline’s expansive report on the NSA in the wake of the Snowden leaks (United States of Secrets) has uncovered some rather amazing stuff about the agency’s mindset. The post-9/11 decision to deflect every question or concern with conjecture about how “thousands of lives” will be lost if its programs are rolled back or altered in any way continues to this dayrehashed in every government hearing and set of talking points since the leaks began.

“Live in fear” is the motto. Every question about domestic surveillance is greeted with nods to its legality and assertions that even acknowledging known facts about the NSA’s programs gives our nation’s enemies the upper hand.

This mindset snapped into place soon after the 9/11 attacks, effectively shutting down the few official routes that existed for whistleblowers. In his interview with Frontline, former NSA head counsel Vito Potenza recalled his “conversation” with a concerned employee. The matter at hand was the sacrosanct “Program,” an audacious form of warrantless wiretapping that gathered the phone calls and internet communications of American citizens.

If he came to me, someone who was not read into “The Program,” right, and not a part of what we were doing and told me that we were running amok essentially and violating the Constitution and it was in that timeframe when there was an awful lot going on and we were all worried about the next attack, there’s no doubt in my mind I would have told him, you know, go talk to your management. Don’t bother me with this. I mean, you know, the minute he said, if he did say you’re using this to violate the Constitution, I mean, I probably would have stopped the conversation at that point quite frankly. So, I mean, if that’s what he said he said, then anything after that I probably wasn’t listening to anyway.

Potenza’s words highlight the agency’s paranoia. The fear of the next attack was used to mute any Constitutional concerns. The agency was now too busy to follow the nation’s laws. This attitude has persisted and the agency has been the beneficiary of court decisions and legal loopholes that have stretched existing laws to fit the NSA’s activities.

The whistleblower Potenza blew off was Thomas Drake, someone who ran into wall after wall in his attempt to go through proper channels with his concerns

[Drake] said he “confronted” Potenza “directly in the most direct language possible” saying “that NSA was violating the Constitution.” So, Potenza “knows the truth and chose to go with ‘The Program.’ And anybody questioning ‘The Program’ was a threat.”

The NSA didn’t want to hear these concerns. Potenza states he told Drake to go to his manager. But Drake already had.

He appealed to Maureen Baginski, who was Drake’s superior and the third highest ranking official at the NSA. She balked at his concerns and told him to contact the Office of General Counsel and speak with the NSA’s lead attorney, Potenza.

All “proper channels” lead to dead ends. Potenza kicked Drake back to the same boss who sent him up the ladder to the General Counsel’s office. It’s little surprise Snowden exited not only the agency, but the country as well. There’s no “proper channel” for whistleblowers — at least not while there’s still an ongoing War on Terror.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Another Former NSA Lawyer Says He Wouldn't Have Listened To Concerns About The Agency's Surveillance Programs”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
24 Comments
That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Clapper’s protected by his position and the self-interest of those that could or would go after him, however, when the heat comes down and people are looking for someone to blame, there’a always need for a few scapegoats, so any lawyer who wasn’t a nice little ‘see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing’ employee would likely find him or herself under the crosshairs.

afn29129says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

“any lawyer who wasn’t a nice little ‘see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing’ employee would likely find him or herself under the crosshairs.”… or anyone within a US spook agencies for that mater. This remind me of William Colby, a former CIA director for ages ago and how he was treated when he testified before Congress. There is even a theory that he was assassinated for his /spilling of the beans/.

Lurker Keithsays:

The more I hear...

I was wondering if you’d comment on Part 2 of United States of Secrets. Wonder how many 1) Americans saw this & were outraged & 2) how many Congress-critters watched it & learned new things & were beyond outraged?

Anyway, the more I hear about how the Government was intentionally ignoring their Constitutional Violations (specifically the “I know nothing! Nothing!” stuff), the more I see correlations w/ Hogans Heroes. That is not a show’s government you want to have your government comparable to. Much less on multiple levels… Idiots!

Tom Stonesays:

We have abandoned the Rule of Law and the constitution, now all power flows from the King. Many wealthy and powerful people like this, not realizing that the Rule of Law from the Magna Carta on was primarily to protect THEM from both the arbitrary actions of the King and to also quiet the peasants. How safe are the assets of the Walton family without the Rule of Law? They have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans combined…when, not if, a successor to our current “elected” King decides they want that wealth…oops.

Anonymoussays:

Clapper, Hayden and Alexander are all criminals and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If this were truly the United States of America in any way but name only, then they would have been prosecuted.

These people are very lucky they live in a country where the laws don’t equally apply to every person (Clapper admitting to perjury). I am proud to say I never served in the military for such a country. Why should I have ever risked my life so that certain people could openly violate my constitutional rights, and face no consequences?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter




Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it