Obama sets the tone on national security for post-terrorist nations

by Daya Gamage

US President Barack Obama, who was forced to take an account of America's extended surveillance network, domestic and foreign, after US National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden's release of highly classified documents revealing the unknown spy regimen last May, delivered a 50-minute assessment on January 17 in Washington which this network, Asian Tribune understands was a tone set for countries such as post-terrorist Sri Lanka, which is still struggling to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In fact, Obama justified America's vast national security network and its penetrating surveillance and intelligence operation to protect the nation and its allies, from global terrorist movements in the post-9/11 era.

In Sri Lanka, after the military defeat of the separatist/terrorist Tamil Tigers in May 2009, the domestic terrorism threat was seen transformed into a ‘global diplomatic insurgency’, well oiled by separatist elements within the Tamil Diaspora in the United States, Canada and European nations.

The Obama administration rightfully recognises the external threats the United States is facing since 9/11 to put a comprehensive national security network in place, giving extensive authority to the National Security Agency (NSA) and the (White House) Directorate of National Intelligence to detect and thwart external threats to the nation.

Obama, in his keynote address on January 17 at the auditorium of the Department of Justice in Washington outlined the measures America has taken to safeguard the nation from external threats.

A South Asian nation, Sri Lanka, currently battling the ‘global diplomatic insurgency’, has seen the interference of separatist elements within the Tamil Diaspora - the elements once assisted the Tamil Tiger terror movement professionally as well as monetarily and through the procurement of arms - aligning with foreign power centres which may have long-term consequences to Sri Lanka's unitary character and its sovereignty.

President Obama's 50-minute address has set the tone for nation's such as Sri Lanka, which is currently undergoing such external threats, to define and comprehend the seriousness of the now-launched ‘global diplomatic insurgency'.

Intelligence agencies

Has Sri Lanka's external affairs approach fit into what Obama noted in his address? “Our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments - as opposed to ordinary citizens - around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. We will not apologise simply because our services may be more effective”.

Here are some ‘Obama points’ to ponder:

The ‘Presidential Directives’ released by the White House immediately after President Obama's address states, “The United States, like other nations, has gathered intelligence throughout its history to ensure that national security and foreign policy decision makers have access to timely, accurate and insightful information. The collection of signals intelligence is necessary for the United States to advance its national security and foreign policy interests and to protect its citizens and the citizens of its allies and partners from harm”.

The Presidential Directive further states, “For the purposes of this directive, the terms “foreign intelligence” and “counter-intelligence” shall have the same meaning as they have in Executive Order 12333. Thus, “foreign intelligence” means “information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organisations, foreign persons, or international terrorists”.

“Signals intelligence activities shall be as tailored as feasible. In determining whether to collect signals intelligence, the United States shall consider the availability of other information, including from diplomatic and public sources”, the White House says.

The Presidential Directive further states, “Only for the purposes of detecting and countering:

(1) Espionage and other threats and activities directed by foreign powers or their intelligence services against the United States and its interests;

(2) Threats to the United States and its interests from terrorism;

(3) Threats to the United States and its interests from the development, possession, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(4) Cyber security threats;

(5) Threats to US or allied Armed Forces or other US or allied personnel; and

(6) Transnational criminal threats, including illicit finance and sanctions evasion related to the other purposes named in this section”.

It is interesting, taking the scenario in Sri Lanka facing ‘global diplomatic insurgency’, (1) and (2) in the Directive are two areas this South Asian nation needs to give added priority in arranging its national security and foreign policy apparatus. It is significant that these two areas are brought under one agency for better coordination and policy formulation as is in the United States.

National security

The White House is very clear of Obama's execution of powers in both foreign affairs and national security: “Nothing in this directive shall be construed to prevent me from exercising my constitutional authority, including as Commander in Chief, Chief Executive, and in the conduct of foreign affairs, as well as my statutory authority”.

Here are excerpts from President Obama's address to the nation which are significant to post-terrorist nations that are endeavouring to combat external forces while safeguarding national security.

“Our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. Instead, they were now asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of networks that, by their very nature, cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants.”

He said, “Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with, and follow the trail of his travel or his funding.”

Obama was walking on a tight rope of balancing national security and liberties in noting, “And yet, in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach - the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security - also became more pronounced.”

Obama said a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to “both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties”.

(Quote) First, the same technological advances that allow US intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al-Qaeda cell in Yemen or an email between two terrorists in the Sahel also mean that many routine communications around the world are within our reach. And at a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.

Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse.

Third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against US persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. This is not unique to America; few, if any, spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. And the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. But America’s capabilities are unique, and the power of new technologies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.

Public debate

And finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work less subject to public debate.

Yet there is an inevitable bias, not only within the intelligence community, but among all of us who are responsible for national security, to collect more information about the world, not less.

So in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate - and oversight that is public, as well as private or classified - the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. And this is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws.

For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy scepticism toward our surveillance programs after I became President.

I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers, and in some cases I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities.

What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale _ not only because I felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens. (End Quote)

Obama referred to the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. He said why it is necessary.

“The telephone meta-data program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists so we can see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible.

“And in terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, US intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, cyber security, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion”.

The United States has all the rights to put in place a coordinated national security and foreign operation network to face threats against the nation. The nations that have defeated domestic terrorism and continue to face external challenges from the remnants of such terrorist movements, well coordinated with foreign power centres and highly active diasporas, President Obama, in his address on January 17, has set the tone for such nations.

Courtesy: Asian Tribune