As WaPo Was Letting Pincus Transcribe, They Were Fighting Administration on Gellman Story

On Friday, the President promised us more transparency on NSA issues.

Meanwhile, the WaPo was preparing this story on NSA issues from Barton Gellman.

Along the way, the Administration gave Gellman a 90-minute interview of unspecified date (it may have been Saturday, the day after Obama’s promise to be more transparent) with NSA’s Director of Compliance John DeLong only to, after the fact, ask for quote approval.

The Obama administration referred all questions for this article to John DeLong, the NSA’s director of compliance, who answered questions freely in a 90-minute interview. DeLong and members of the NSA communications staff said he could be quoted “by name and title” on some of his answers after an unspecified internal review. The Post said it would not permit the editing of quotes. Two days later, White House and NSA spokesmen said that none of DeLong’s comments could be quoted on the record and sent instead a prepared statement in his name. The Post declines to accept the substitute language as quotations from DeLong.

On August 12, the government refused to answer specific questions about compliance issues, even though Gellman had a report on them in hand.

The NSA communications office, in coordination with the White House and Director of National Intelligence, declined to answer questions about the number of violations of the rules, regulations and court-imposed standards for protecting the privacy of Americans, including whether the trends are up or down. Spokesmen provided the following prepared statement.

Then, on August 14, it offered this statement in response to specific questions about the FISA Court finding NSA to have violated the Fourth Amendment in October 2011.

In July 2012, Director of National Intelligence [James R.] Clapper declassified certain statements about the government’s implementation of Section 702 in order to inform the public and congressional debate relating to reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). Those statements acknowledged that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had determined that “some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

The FISC’s finding was with respect to a very specific and highly technical aspect of the National Security Agency’s 702 collection. Once the issue was identified and fully understood, it was reported immediately to the FISC and Congress. In consultation with the FISC, the Department of Justice, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence worked to address the concerns identified by the FISC by strengthening the NSA minimization procedures, thereby enhancing privacy protections for U.S. persons. The FISC has continued to approve the collection as consistent with the statute and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

I’m so old I remember when President Obama promised us more transparency.

But even as the WaPo was having these ridiculous conversations with the IC about data that Gellman had in hand, Walter Pincus was writing this story.

It’s time for the intelligence community to have its side of the debate over the National Security Agency’s collection programs explained.

[snip]

Such transparency is useless if the news media do not pass it on to the public. Few, if any, major news outlets carried any of the details from the Justice and NSA papers.

[snip]

Intelligence officials say that if the U.S. media do not provide what the government claims are the facts underlying what critics and supporters say, the public cannot understand the issue.

[snip]

There are two more issues intelligence officials want noted.

That is, even while IC officials were whining to Pincus that no one was spewing their propaganda, they were playing games with Gellman to try to influence his piece while not admitting he had a handful of documents on violations that proved them wrong.

Though none of that explains what this is, from Gellman’s story.

a senior NSA official said in an interview, speaking with White House permission on the condition of anonymity.

I’m going to guess that’s DeLong. But still: why give the government their shot at rebuttal if they refuse to let their officials be accountable for their comments?

Twitter52Reddit0Facebook3Google+4Email

11 Responses to As WaPo Was Letting Pincus Transcribe, They Were Fighting Administration on Gellman Story

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV RT @nomiprins: This just in - My FDL Book Salon for All the Presidents' Bankers Apr. 26 to be hosted by @WilliamKBlack! http://t.co/LXIX656
10mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV The catcher didn't.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis I mean, murder, assault, rape etc, absent a fed person victim are simply common law state crimes. Period.
29mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Yep. Agree about Fed HC laws too. Unnecessary+just gives them path to bigfoot and steal jurisdiction from states where belongs.
30mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis I just object to relative valuation of different victims. Is crime really worse because defendant shouted an epithet?
37mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Exactly. To extent its relative, mental state already in play in elements of underlying crime.
38mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Note that the Supreme Court has heard my arguments+found hate crimes constitutional in their face. I am prob in minority here.
41mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Also fairly leery of the 1st Amnd/thought crime aspects. The crime is the thing; mental state already an element for culpability
50mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @dmataconis Because are often separate crimes, not merely sent. considerations. And still the issue are some victims inherently worth more?
56mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @ZaidJilani: @jaketapper @peterdaou Compared to West, Texas, there is definitely an imbalance
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SarahKnuckey Isn't an attack on KSA the same as an attack on the US?
2hreplyretweetfavorite