How Surveillance-State Insiders Try to Discredit NSA Critics


Who has done more than anyone else to increase public understanding of what the National Security Agency does? A top-10 list would have to include James Bamford, its first and most prolific journalistic chronicler, and Glenn Greenwald, a primary recipient of classified documents leaked months ago by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Over the weekend, I engaged in a back-and-forth with a former NSA employee who harshly criticized both (and me, too) with words that illuminate how some insiders view the press and the national-security state.

His name is John R. Schindler. In his own words, he is a "professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, where he’s been since 2005, and where he teaches courses on security, strategy, intelligence, terrorism, and occasionally military history." He previously spent "nearly a decade with the National Security Agency as an intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer," and he is "a senior fellow of the International History Institute at Boston University and is chairman of the Partnership for Peace Consortium's Combating Terrorism Working Group, a unique body which brings together scholars and practitioners from more than two dozen countries across Eurasia to tackle problems of terrorism, extremism, and political violence." In addition, his blog has some smart commentary on it.

He is certainly a surveillance-state expert. In comparison, I started writing regularly about surveillance in June when the Snowden story broke. If we're going by the dictionary definition, Schindler is correct that I am a neophyte, "a person who is new to a subject, skill, or belief." As Schindler and I interacted on Twitter, a predictable divide opened up between his followers, who are generally supportive of the surveillance state, and mine, who are more skeptical of it. Highlighting parts of our exchange* will permit me to better explain what it is that many of us "outsiders" find so frustrating about how "insiders" treat this subject. 

line-height:150%;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"”>* * *

Every so often, journalists begin to cover a new subject. When I started reporting on Rancho Cucamonga, California, I was a neophyte. Eventually I knew everyone and my reporting spurred a recall. It wasn't so long ago that I'd never thought about drones. Now I can hold my own in an extended debate with an esteemed alumnus of the Oxford Union. The benefits of constrained surveillance are obvious enough. One day, I'll be more adept at pinpointing what surveillance-state insiders obscure with their jargon, elide with technically accurate but misleading statements, and tell credulous politicians to delay or water down reforms. Today it takes me a long time in front of the keyboard and a lot of open tabs to figure all that out, and there are worthwhile angles I'm still not able to cover.

So I have a long reading list, a desire to engage smart colleagues with different perspectives than my own, a reporting trip to Germany under my belt for international perspective**, an inclination to air smart dissents, and an eagerness to engage transparently. Implicit in all this is a belief that a generalist opinion journalist can add value to public discourse while developing expertise on a subject, and can gain invaluable knowledge from the audience too. There is no better example than the Snowden revelations of all outsiders learning significant new information together. If there were enough experts with the time, inclination, ability, and independence to write fluently and enjoyably for a general audience, there would be no need for journalists as informational middlemen. But experts are often busy, compromised, insular, boring, uninterested in reaching general audiences, or inclined to pull up informational ladders rather than lower them. 

That brings me back to Schindler, who I follow, and who retweeted the following:

This is factually inaccurate. Numerous news organizations have spent untold sums attempting to investigate the context of Snowden's leaks. They have added lots of context beyond reproducing slide decks. (To cite one typical example, see Barton Gellman in this story, augmenting his analysis of leaked documents with independent verification from intelligence sources. Also see much of what Marc Ambinder writes.) And while there's been a lot of flawed journalism on this subject, as on all subjects, many commentators have been more unfair to Snowden and Greenwald than the NSA. Richard Cohen puts himself in that category! 

Rather than focus on the obviously incorrect "100 percent context-free" claim, I noted that "the obstacle to context is overclassification, not an unwillingness to investigate among journalists." Going back to the very first leak story, "The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication." National-security journalists scrambled en masse to find sources to provide context for the leaked documents. I'd never claim that no mistakes have been made in reporting on them. These are highly classified, technologically complex programs, and it's perfectly legitimate to observe that presentation decks don't always square with reality. 

But officials have actively stymied journalistic efforts to determine the whole truth. They've lied under oath to Congress and held back relevant information prior to important votes. They've long over-classified material on a wide range of subjects. And they still insist that many aspects of NSA surveillance ought to remain secret, unknown even to many members of Congress. National-security-state "insiders" are entitled to the belief that classified mass-surveillance programs are legitimate and that obfuscation by officials is understandable. They are not entitled to falsely claim that journalists are not interested in gathering context, even as many labor mightily to do so and gradually make gains, to the consternation of insiders and their allies. 

That is a debate I'd have liked to hash out with Schindler. But oftentimes, insiders will shift the focus away from positions they can't defend by making an implicit or explicit claim that outsiders aren't even qualified to disagree with them. Here's how Schindler responded to my point about context:

style='width:387.75pt;height:253.5pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;
mso-left-percent:-10001;mso-top-percent:-10001;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line;mso-left-percent:-10001;mso-top-percent:-10001;
v-text-anchor:top' o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC75UiUBQEAAB4CAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbKSRvU7DMBSF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" filled="f" stroked="f">



{C}{C}

Suddenly, my assertion that journalists are, in fact, trying their damnedest to provide context was no longer the subject of debate—instead, we were talking about a recent item I wrote revisiting the first chapter of The Puzzle Palace, Bamford's 1982 book that gave the general public its first journalistic look at the NSA. I did so in an effort to give my readers more context. Schindler's position is that I am discredited by virtue of revisiting it! I'm highly skeptical, for reasons that we'll get to shortly, but open in the sense I always am—that is to say, I want to hear specific critiques of any book I'm reading and writing about so that I can be aware of and note any actual errors.

The response I got:

style='width:395.25pt;height:80.25pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;
mso-left-percent:-10001;mso-top-percent:-10001;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:char;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:line;mso-left-percent:-10001;mso-top-percent:-10001;
v-text-anchor:top' o:gfxdata="UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQC75UiUBQEAAB4CAAATAAAAW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbKSRvU7DMBSF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" filled="f" stroked="f">



{C}

If you click through to that link, you'll find—in addition to some useful pointers to information about the NSA that makes exchanges like these worth having—attacks on Bamford that are totally lacking in specificity. His book is called "a gossipy tome that was culled largely from unclassified Agency newsletters." He is criticized for failing to note in some versions of his bio that "he served for three years in the Naval Security Group, the Navy’s portion of NSA, so he was a cryptologic insider," experience that seems like a point in his favor to me. "Bamford’s writings on NSA, which are considerable, are noted for their quantity, not quality," Schindler states in the passive voice, neglecting to say who rendered that judgment. "He tends to sensationalism and sometimes outright fabrication. Bamford cannot be considered a reliable source on SIGINT and his methods tend towards the sleazy; before 9/11, when the Cryptologic History Symposium was held inside NSA headquarters, Bamford used to try to chat up random NSAers, hoping they would tell him secrets."

So he is "sleazy" because he was writing a book on the NSA and tried to get NSA employees to tell him secrets? I see that as a mark in his favor too. 

I kept pressing for specifics.

Now, I didn't just pluck Bamford's book off the shelf at random. His work on the NSA comes highly recommended by numerous sources knowledgeable about the surveillance state, who independently urged that I add it to a long list of "homework" I requested. Also, the author is a former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, a law-school graduate, and a National Magazine Award winner. And no one has suggested anything in the chapter of his book I summarized is inaccurate or misleading. I'd never counsel relying exclusively on his book, but many people recommend it as a great resource for anyone trying to get educated on the NSA's history.

So Schindler declares a widely respected author a sleazy fabricator. And pressed for evidence—because if there's a serious problem with the book that none of my sources mentioned, I want to know about it!—he declares, "I'm not your research assistant," as if I initiated the subject. No, Professor Schindler, you're not any journalist's research assistant. You're a college professor and a public intellectual making a public criticism of a widely respected author, and of a journalist who is revisiting that author's work. Backing up your claims with evidence is something you do for the sake of your own intellectual integrity and a productive public discourse.

With regard to the latter, it isn't anyone's "job" to help inform debates on Twitter. People do it because the Internet often permits us to be helpful and advance discourse with incredibly minimal effort. Being helpful is often as easy as being unhelpful. This is not the behavior of a U.S. Naval War College professor who is engaged in earnest attempts to increase the general public's understanding. The exchange was, rather, an attempt to discredit the NSA's critics without refuting them, and it earned predictable atta-boys from other NSA insiders who dislike Bamford. 

Journalism has its flaws, but the profession is useful in part because practitioners don't initiate exchanges of this form:

looked up the controversy, I see that it pertains to an incident involving the Israeli military firing on an American naval vessel and whether it was an accident or intentional, not to Bamford's account of the NSA's history. And while I have no idea who is right about the naval incident in question, accusing Bamford of fabricating his source material is a significant leap. (All that said, I'm glad to know about this controversy, and if I write about the book in which it appears I'll be sure to link the inconclusive arguments on both sides. And if anyone has specific criticisms of Bamford's first book, let's hear 'em!) 

What vexes me most is the claim that non-Ph.D. journalists are uninformed, careless, and sensationalistic, degrading the elevated discourse that insiders would ostensibly be conducting in our absence–and Schindler's simultaneous ad hominem and tendency toward brazenly asserting wild, unproven charges.

Set Bamford and his aside. Shortly after that exchange, Schindler tweeted:

FSB is Russia's successor to the KGB.

So to sum up: A former NSA employee and U.S. Naval War College professor insists that journalists are sensationalists too lazy to back up their assertions with reporting … and then he breezily accuses two Americans of a capital crime, implies without evidence that Greenwald has been motivated to report on the Snowden leaks for love of money (see Greenwald's response here), and alleges without evidence that half the Snowden operation was orchestrated by Russian authorities. As it turns out, knowledgeable NSA insiders with Ph.D.s and fancy institutional affiliations are every bit as capable of sensationalism and trafficking in evidence-free conspiracy theories as the least responsible members of the press.

Consumers of journalism should be aware of its limitations. On most topics, there are experts who know more than journalists (though it is rare that they're able and willing to share their expertise with a general audience). Even the most careful journalists can make mistakes. As in any profession, some journalists are less diligent than they ought to be about what they publish and how open they are to revisiting it. And there is a consumer-driven incentive to write sensational headlines.

What the web era offers is a journalistic ecosystem that's more transparent and rich than any that preceded it. Implicit in Schindler's critique is a notion that in a perfect world, all journalists would be Ph.D.-holding insiders, and (if his work is any indication) they would also use insider terminology and assumptions and refrain from opinionated criticism. As a reader of journalism watching the Snowden story unfold in real time, I value the diverse approaches to the story that are available to us. Greenwald's work is characterized by a fierce independence and refusal to uncritically accept official statements. His collaborations with establishment news organizations have brought careful editing and verification to bear. Marcy Wheeler's ability to dive deep and make connections everyone else missed is vital. So is generalist Jack Shafer's ability to write sophisticated commentary and analysis that broad audiences can understand. There are many other journalists doing good work on this story, some as straight reporters, others as analysts and commentators; some experts, others generalists. Subjecting them all to criticism is highly desirable, but it ought to be specific, so that public understanding is actually advanced. 

Alas, surveillance-state insiders have a monopoly on some facts by virtue of classified information to which they're privy. Some of them, like Schindler, adopt the insider mindset so completely that any critic who doesn't share national-security-state assumptions is declared unworthy of substantive engagement:

That mindset is a shame, and betrays a degree of intellectual dishonesty: some national security state insiders write as if they just want journalists to be professional and offer full context. In fact, they favor journalism that leaves out all context that is classified, even insisting the notion that full context should be reported is childish. The prevalence of that mindset among insiders is exactly why outsider journalists are needed. Outsider journalists assume that self-government requires an informed public. And we believe even members of the public who believe spy agencies should be denied much of the secrecy they now enjoy are fully legitimate participants in public discourse, not people to be diminished and dismissed. 

__

* I've done my best to accurately represent the parts of our exchange relevant to journalism and NSA coverage, but I am obviously an interested party. Schindler's Twitter page is here, and searching it for my handle, @Conor64, will yield the full content of our exchange, along with others who added to the conversation.

** Story coming soon.

Leave a comment