General Keith Alexander Is An Opportunistic Coward

[Mike]

In all that we've written about General Keith Alexander, former chief guy at the NSA who has overseen the most egregious overreach in domestic spying American history, we've learned a great deal about him. For instance, we know logic eludes him, after he insisted that we need more spying because current spying is encouraging terrorism. We also know he doesn't give a damn about the whole freedom of the press thing, what with his support for press gag orders. And we know he's a man of limited imagination, having told Congress he just can't think of any other way to keep you and I safe without the NSA's massive surveillance programs.

You know what else Keith Alexander is? A coward. I say that absolutely knowing that I'll probably get killed in the comments for suggesting a man who signed up to serve the public, serve in the military, and serve in intelligence is a coward. Well to hell with anyone who suggests you can't call a man who serves a coward. Where were all of you when Edward Snowden was getting lambasted in the exact same way? Still, accusing a man like Alexander of cowardice requires an explanation. Get yourself started by watching this clip of his appearance on CNN.

"It's going to get more dangerous. I would rather be sitting here in the hot seat defending what we're doing than sitting here in the hot seat after a terrorist attack and you asking me 'how did we fail the country?' It's a bad place out there. They're trying to kill us. These are some of the tools. If you take away some of the tools, it is my assessment after forty years in the business, and today is my fortieth anniversary in joining the army, it is my assessment that it is going to get tougher. And these leaks have hurt us. They will get tougher."

Okay, let's get the obvious out of the way. All this harm that has supposedly been done by Snowden's leaks turns out to be smoke and mirrors, as far as what the government is willing to prove is concerned. Now that that's out of the way, perhaps unlike some of my colleagues here, I too believe there is a very real danger from international terrorism. That said, a blanket statement about how bad things are and how "they" are trying to kill us is about as useful as a rectum on a houseplant. Nobody is arguing that there isn't at least some degree of danger, the argument is over how far we're willing to let our government go to protect the liberty at which they're chipping away, nevermind the way we comport ourselves as a member of the international community.

But it's the first part of that statement that really pisses me off and it's that same part that reveals the cowardice inside Alexander. This constant hint-dropping of how much more difficult it is to prevent the next domestic terrorist attack now that the public is aware of the massive surveillance program is a pretty clear attempt at innoculation of responsibility. It's as if these spy chiefs looked at the damning of public officials that occurred after 9/11 (far too little of it, in my opinion) and decided to shield themselves from possible future criticism by proactively blaming Snowden's leaks for forthcoming attacks. Read another way, his hot seat comment reads to say: if sometime in the future, thousands of Americans end up dead in an attack, don't come blame us, you took our tools away from us.

For me, it's hard to imagine a more cowardly statement. Is Alexander so afraid to face potential failure that he would scapegoat someone who, at the very least, thought he was doing his patriotic duty? Would he have the intelligence community sidestep their responsibility simply because the public now recognizes the NSA's overreach? Would he cast off his duty simply because sunlight has finally marked his underground lair?

That kind of chess-piece positioning isn't the act of a patriot. It isn't the act of a hero. It's the act of a coward, which is exactly what General Keith Alexander is, and I'm happy to treat him like one. After all, the brave thing to do is to understand that freedom comes with danger and to bear that danger gratefully and willingly.

Originally Published: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:33:00 GMT
source

[GuestGuest]

In all that we've written about General Keith Alexander, former chief guy at the NSA who has overseen the most egregious overreach in domestic spying American history, we've learned a great deal about him. For instance, we know logic eludes him, after he insisted that we need more spying because current spying is encouraging terrorism. We also know he doesn't give a damn about the whole freedom of the press thing, what with his support for press gag orders. And we know he's a man of limited imagination, having told Congress he just can't think of any other way to keep you and I safe without the NSA's massive surveillance programs.

You know what else Keith Alexander is? A coward. I say that absolutely knowing that I'll probably get killed in the comments for suggesting a man who signed up to serve the public, serve in the military, and serve in intelligence is a coward. Well to hell with anyone who suggests you can't call a man who serves a coward. Where were all of you when Edward Snowden was getting lambasted in the exact same way? Still, accusing a man like Alexander of cowardice requires an explanation. Get yourself started by watching this clip of his appearance on CNN.

"It's going to get more dangerous. I would rather be sitting here in the hot seat defending what we're doing than sitting here in the hot seat after a terrorist attack and you asking me 'how did we fail the country?' It's a bad place out there. They're trying to kill us. These are some of the tools. If you take away some of the tools, it is my assessment after forty years in the business, and today is my fortieth anniversary in joining the army, it is my assessment that it is going to get tougher. And these leaks have hurt us. They will get tougher."

Okay, let's get the obvious out of the way. All this harm that has supposedly been done by Snowden's leaks turns out to be smoke and mirrors, as far as what the government is willing to prove is concerned. Now that that's out of the way, perhaps unlike some of my colleagues here, I too believe there is a very real danger from international terrorism. That said, a blanket statement about how bad things are and how "they" are trying to kill us is about as useful as a rectum on a houseplant. Nobody is arguing that there isn't at least some degree of danger, the argument is over how far we're willing to let our government go to protect the liberty at which they're chipping away, nevermind the way we comport ourselves as a member of the international community.

But it's the first part of that statement that really pisses me off and it's that same part that reveals the cowardice inside Alexander. This constant hint-dropping of how much more difficult it is to prevent the next domestic terrorist attack now that the public is aware of the massive surveillance program is a pretty clear attempt at innoculation of responsibility. It's as if these spy chiefs looked at the damning of public officials that occurred after 9/11 (far too little of it, in my opinion) and decided to shield themselves from possible future criticism by proactively blaming Snowden's leaks for forthcoming attacks. Read another way, his hot seat comment reads to say: if sometime in the future, thousands of Americans end up dead in an attack, don't come blame us, you took our tools away from us.

For me, it's hard to imagine a more cowardly statement. Is Alexander so afraid to face potential failure that he would scapegoat someone who, at the very least, thought he was doing his patriotic duty? Would he have the intelligence community sidestep their responsibility simply because the public now recognizes the NSA's overreach? Would he cast off his duty simply because sunlight has finally marked his underground lair?

That kind of chess-piece positioning isn't the act of a patriot. It isn't the act of a hero. It's the act of a coward, which is exactly what General Keith Alexander is, and I'm happy to treat him like one. After all, the brave thing to do is to understand that freedom comes with danger and to bear that danger gratefully and willingly.



Permalink | Comments | Email This Story










Originally Published: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:33:00 GMT
source

And absolutely ZERO fucks were given.

Sorry for trolling but let's face facts. For everyone 1 indivudual that gives a fuck there's more than a million don't. Just 20 years ago the shit that goes on today would have triggered off protests. 30 years ago there would have been protests and this crap would have become crucial issues during all elections. 40 years ago there would have been protests and bricks being thrown and 50 years ago hell would have broken loose.

But today the reaction is "yea they're spying on me and it sucks. But hey look there's tits on facebook"

[GuestGuest]

Why does it bother mike so much that his so-called "LIBERTIES" are being "SUPPOSEDLY" encroached upon?? Leave this political shit out of here man.. Eat Drink & Be Happy... Software -> Video -> Porn, whatever gets you off...!!

[LZA]

I have to interject on the last post. Although I've not paid attention to General Alexander's story, this article is a good place to start.

Mike: just an FYI, a few columns down there is a Law, Politics, etc thread. If you post your next post regarding politics, at least the readers would expect it there.

I am not a mod or anyone with authority, but I don't see any harm or foul in this case; maybe a mod can move it there???

[NIK]

Why does it bother you so much that someone expresses an opinion?

Why are you defending a government which has decided you're not entitled to watch your porn in private?

[LZA]

I enjoyed his opinion on the matter. It actually enlightened me that there is another shithead prick at the NSApulling stunts. Honestly, I don't read newspapers or watch too much news. I hate fox news since it's slanted, so most of my info I get on sites like this. That's just in case your (NIK)'s post was meant for me too. I think the guest who posted needs to broaden their horizons . LIke me. I can talk about politics and porn just as good as the next guy.

**on topic** I guess it's easier for the masses to not give a fuck, and that's how the NSA likes it. They can cherry pick whatever info they want without people really caring or knowing...Then there are those who are outraged by this but really don't have a clue as to the scope of the spying...I may have to put myself into that category. I haven't really read up on all that they do, but I don't really like them doing it.

Oh well, there's shit that's going on that we'll really never know about...

[NIK]

It wasn't meant for you--I didn't even know you had posted--you must have hit "Post Reply" sometime after I'd opened the thread and very shortly before I hit "Post Reply"

As for the opening post itself, it's typical American military: MOAR WEAPONS, MOAR! MOAR! Fuck "collateral damage" if people didn't want to fucked over they wouldn't be not us. Nothing we ever do can be wrong.

[Mike]

FOIA enthusiast Jason Leopold isn't going to sit back and let former NSA head Keith Alexander recede noisily into the background. Alexander's transition from spy-in-chief to $1 million-a-month rockstar security consultant to our nation's most easily-impressed banks is currently on everyone's minds. First off, how many state secrets is he selling? And just how many hacker-beating patents will he be filing for?

But while slipping loudly out the front door with a quick wave of the hand and an accidental admission that his long tenure at the NSA's helm has done nothing to beat back the terrorist horde, Alexander may have felt his move to the private sector would keep his financial records out of the public eye. Leopold, however, has just filed a lawsuit against the agency for its continued refusal to release these public records.

[S]ome aren't simply laughing off the retired four-star general's new endeavor. Some, like Leopold, are concerned that Alexander might actually plan on selling high-level state security secrets for his hefty price tag.

In the Baltimore division of the federal district of Maryland, the law offices of Jeffrey Light have served the NSA with a complaint, listing Leopold’s multiple attempts to retrieve Alexander's records, and the utter refusal by the agency to fulfill the journalist’s requests.

Citing the Ethics in Government Act, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson wrote on behalf of Leopold, in a letter addressed to NSA Deputy Counsel Ariana Cerelenko, pressing that the public release of Alexander’s financial records are required—“unless the President finds that the release of the form would ‘reveal sensitive information,’ or ‘compromise the national interest.’"

As Daniel Stuckey at Vice points out, the NSA is the lone holdout when it comes to financial records. Even the CIA and the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) have made these documents available. But the NSA wants to hold onto Alexander's records even though there's no established legal reason for doing so.

Notably, this is not a FOIA request. This is a document that can be requested by any member of the public simply by filling out a form. These financial disclosures are to be made public under the stipulations of the Ethics in Government Act (EGA) of 1978. But the NSA has held the (now former) agency head above the requirements of this law, even though there's nothing in the law that indicates the agency is outside of its jurisdiction. Obviously, Alexander's departure for the private sector raises questions about his prior connections to companies that may have benefited from expanding surveillance programs or may be potential purchasers of his $1 million/month protection plan. These are questions that need answers, and the NSA is arbitrarily withholding mandatory financial disclosures. If the White House has given the agency super-secret permission to ignore the stipulations of the EGA, hopefully Leopold's lawsuit will force that out into the open. If not, the NSA will need to start explaining why it's not being responsive, and it won't have the handy b(5) exemption [for FOIA requests only] to lean on.

Originally Published: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 03:36:21 GMT
source