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.

US President Barack Obama delivers his address on January 17 |
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

Whistle-blower Edward Snowden |
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 |