When bureaucrats speak gobbldygook, watch your back
by digby
There were a couple of big stories yesterday about the NSA programs, from the AP and the Washington Post. You can read them for yourselves and decide if they are, as critics contend, treason or something else.
There are lots of details to think about but I think Emptywheel homed in on one of the most interesting:
As I noted, the WaPo makes it clear one of the most sensitive parts of the government’s surveillance programs is the collection of Internet metadata.
But the thing is, it doesn’t come out and explain whether and if so how it continues to go on.
This passage, written in the present tense, sure seems to suggest it continues.
MARINA and the collection tools that feed it are probably the least known of the NSA’s domestic operations, even among experts who follow the subject closely. Yet they probably capture information about more American citizens than any other, because the volume of e-mail, chats and other Internet communications far exceeds the volume of standard telephone calls.
The NSA calls Internet metadata “digital network information.” Sophisticated analysis of those records can reveal unknown associates of known terrorism suspects. Depending on the methods applied, it can also expose medical conditions, political or religious affiliations, confidential business negotiations and extramarital affairs.
What permits the former and prevents the latter is a complex set of policies that the public is not permitted to see. “You could do analyses that give you more information, but the law and procedures don’t allow that,” a senior U.S. intelligence lawyer said.
Yet buried in the last paragraphs of the story, WaPo’s sources suggest “the NSA is no longer doing it.” Or — as elaborated — doing “it” under the guise of and with the oversight of the FISA court.
As for bulk collection of Internet metadata, the question that triggered the crisis of 2004, another official said the NSA is no longer doing it. When pressed on that question, he said he was speaking only of collections under authority of the surveillance court.
“I’m not going to say we’re not collecting any Internet metadata,” he added. “We’re not using this program and these kinds of accesses to collect Internet metadata in bulk.”
I was struck by that last as well. It’s an oddly specific way of denying something, isn’t it? We used to call this a non-denial denial.
Marcy has developed some very interesting speculation about why they are speaking in this odd way: they are trying to focus everyone’s attention on the specific programs managed under Section 215 of the PATRIOT ACT and the FAA. But it’s highly possible that the data collection in question is being done under different auspices altogether.
I obviously don’t know if that’s the case. But I do know that when bureaucrats start speaking in tongues, you should be suspicious.
By the way — if you aren’t reading Marcy Wheeler on this story, you’re not getting a full picture. Not only is she a gifted close reader, she has an amazing memory and has been following this story since the early Bush years. He speculation is well grounded and her suspicions are worth taking seriously. If you need more than my dirty hippie endorsement, be advised that some of the most highly respected national security journalists in the country follow her work.
.