David Frum Twitter Debate with Glen Greenwald on US Surveillance
I’m no great fan of David Frum, but I thought this twitter debate between Glen Greenwald and Frum was instructive:
New @ggreenwald idea: agency wh exists to gather foreign intelligence should not gather intelligence on foreigners. http://t.co/mAg59s6TCc
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
@davidfrum The cost is destroying privacy worldwide – I guess the world will debate & decide if that's a justifiable & worthwhile cost.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 7, 2013
Glen then retweeted this:
@davidfrum @ggreenwald Mr. Frum, when you find out the Chinese govt has all your email and phone calls, let's not hear any bitching, ok?
— IJK (@iconjack) July 7, 2013
Which I find somewhat ironic – didn’t Snowden reportedly give them this information? How is this more Frum’s fault than Snowden’s? We can’t control China spying on us, and demanding that America stop spying won’t prevent them from doing the same. So what’s their point?
@ggreenwald Foreign intelligence gathering is not based on "wrongdoing." It's not a judicial proceeding – it's threat anticipation.
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
@ggreenwald method: *First* USG decides who poses a threat to US, *then* it gathers foreign intelligence on them. #goodplan
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
Snowden doesn’t answer this, he just resorts to the “blame bush” defense:
@davidfrum There are serious costs to doing bad things to the rest of the world, as you should have learned from the war you helped sell.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 7, 2013
Frum makes a good point about the limitations of the rights accorded to people under the constitution:
@ggreenwald US policy is decided by US voters, subject to the US constitution which is binding only upon US. #Democracy
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
And here, the argument is very much like the one about nuclear arms – drawing down on surveillance doesn’t guarantee that anyone else will follow suit. It only guarantees that America will be weaker then it’s competitors:
@iconjack China will not spy less upon US if US decides to blind itself. Meanwhile US needs to know what China is up to in order to stop it
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
Frum makes a historical case:
@ggreenwald There are also serious costs to shutting down intelligence services in a dangerous world. #PearlHarbor
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
I'm sure the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor were each individually honest men who had never previously violated US law.
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
Still, despite their law-abiding character, would have been useful to know whereabouts of those Japanese pilots ~ Dec. 6, 1941.
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
This is purely hypothetical – it would have been in our nation’s interest to spy on those Japanese citizen’s whereabouts and intentions in order to prevent an attack on America.
.@dooglives We're not discussing domestic surveillance. @ggreenwald has staked out new position against FOREIGN surveillance!
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
Can’t argue with this:
Inside the territory of US allies are found many individuals who plan harm both against US and their own societies. #duh.
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
Eventually he hits on the main issue:
Some on Twitter suggest that US only surveil "actual threats." And we identify those … how? Or do we wait till after 1 free terrorist act?
— David Frum (@davidfrum) July 7, 2013
Glen shut up right quick and could not answer.
