The Spy Factory (2009)

The Spy Factory is a documentary film that was shown on US television (PBS) in 2009. It is an episode in the long-running program NOVA, which focuses on the history of science and technology (season 36, episode 11). Here is some basic information about it:

** Written and produced by James Bamford

** Directed and produced by C. Scott Willis

** Narrated by Jay O. Sanders

** Run time: 55 minutes

This film is the story of the National Security Agency (NSA) before and after the attack on the World Trade Center and other locations in 2001, known in the US as September 11. The NSA is a US government intelligence organisation which monitors communications all over the world in order to protect the security of the United States. It is a very secretive organisation. It was established in 1952, but for many years even its very existence was a secret. According to a joke, the letters NSA stand for “No Such Agency.” According to another joke, the letters stand for “Never Say Anything.”

The film is based on James Bamford’s book The Shadow Factory that was published in 2008. Bamford has been studying this institution for many years. His first book about the NSA – The Puzzle Palace – was published in 1982, during the Cold War and long before the age of the internet.

According to the film, the NSA knew the identities of the men who planned to attack the World Trade Center and other locations. They knew where these men were and what they were doing whenever they left an electronic trace. They followed them as they moved from California on the west coast towards New York and Washington, DC, on the east coast.

The day before the attack some of these men were actually staying at a motel in Maryland, just a few miles from the headquarters of the NSA. But the NSA never shared this knowledge with other security organisations, such as the CIA or the FBI, which means that these organisations were unable to stop these men from carrying out their deadly plans.

Several witnesses were interviewed for the film. Some of them know the NSA from the inside, because they used to work there. Others only know the institution from the outside. The NSA was invited to appear in the film, but the offer was declined. They did not wish to send a member of staff for an interview nor did they wish to answer any questions. Here are the names of the witnesses in the order of appearance:

** James Bamford, author

** Eric Haseltine, NSA director of research, 2002-2005

** Tim Sample, former staff director, House Intelligence Committee

** Michael Scheuer, former CIA analyst

** Mark Rossini, former FBI supervisory agent

** Frank Blanco, NSA executive director, 1999-2001

** Eleanor Hill, staff director, Congressional 9/11 Committee

** Mark Klein, former AT & T technician

** Brian Reid, Internet Systems Consortium

** Adrienne Kinne, former NSA voice interceptor

** David Murfee Faulk, former NSA voice interceptor

[General Michael Hayden, NSA director 1999-2005, appears in the film, but his statement is an excerpt from a Congressional hearing that took place in 2000. The general was not interviewed for the film.]

The information presented in The Spy Factory is important, some observers might even describe it as alarming and disturbing, but it seems to be credible, because it is supported by evidence and it is presented by people who seem to know what they are talking about.

If you are interested current affairs – in particular the world of intelligence and the rise of the national security state – then this film is something for you.

PS # 1. James Bamford’s books about the NSA: The Puzzle Palace (1982, 1983) and The Shadow Factory (2008, 2009).

PS # 2. For more information and more details, see the following items:

** War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State (2013)

** United States of Secrets (2014)

** Citizen Four (2014)

***

 

The cover of Bamford's book from 1982

 

 

The cover of Bamford's book from 2008

 

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

War on Whistleblowers (2013)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State is a US documentary film from 2013. Here is some basic information about it:

** Produced by Brave New Films

** Directed by Robert Greenwald

** Run time: 65 minutes

PART ONE

This film presents four cases that originated from four whistleblowers. The testimonies offered by the four whistleblowers are supplemented by interviews with several reporters and several experts, including Daniel Ellsberg and Seymour Hersh.

** Case # 1 by Franz Gayl is about the US Army and equipment used in Iraq

** Case # 2 by Thomas Drake is about the NSA and uncontrolled spying on US citizens

** Case # 3 by Michael DeKort is about the US Coast Guard and equipment used for rescue operations

** Case # 4 by Thomas Tamm is about the NSA and illegal wiretapping of US citizens

The director of the film wants us to know the difference between leaking and whistleblowing.

When information is leaked, it means that a secret is handed to the media, often classified information, and this is done with a specific political purpose, for instance to embarrass someone or to make someone look good.

Whistleblowing is different. An employee becomes aware of a serious problem - e.g. waste, fraud or abuse - in a public institution or a private company. The employee tries to use the official chain of command to draw attention to the problem, but it is in vain. The warning is ignored. Then, after much hesitation, the employee decides to become a whistleblower.

He or she contacts one or several reporters, who will cover the problem. In most cases, the secret that is revealed, is not classified information. And the purpose of going public is not political; it is to benefit the people, to make sure that taxpayers money is spent in a sensible way or to make sure that the rights of citizens are respected.

The whistleblower knows that going public is most likely a career suicide. This is not something that is done for personal gain, but because the person feels that he or she cannot remain silent anymore.

PART TWO

What do reviewers say about this film?

  

On Rotten Tomatoes it has a rating of 60 per cent. 

On IMDb it has a rating of 74 per cent. 

I understand the positive reviews, and I agree with them. 

This is an important film about an important topic. 

I do, however, have one critical comment regarding the structure of the film.

Since director Robert Greenwald wants to present four cases, I would expect the structure of the film to be as follows:

Case # 1, case # 2, case # 3, and case # 4. One after the other. At the end, after these four case studies, there should be a section in which the topic is discussed in a general way. But this is not how the film is put together.

Case # 1 is presented without interruptions, from the beginning to the end (as it should be). But the remaining three cases are not presented one by one. They are mixed up. We meet whistleblower # 2, but before his case is presented, we meet whistleblower # 3, who has another case. And before his case is presented, we meet whistleblower # 4, whose case is almost the same as case # 2. This structure is confusing.

I think it would have been better to take these cases one by one and not mix them up. I want to follow one whistleblower and his case from the beginning to the end before we move to the next whistleblower and the next case. I think the editor made an unfortunate choice when he decided that the presentation of the last three cases should be mixed up and not taken one by one.

I also think the pace of the film is too fast. Many clips are very short. If you ask me, they are too short. When a witness appears, the name and affiliation appears on the screen (which is helpful). It takes a moment to read this information. When I have read this information, I am ready to listen to the witness, but by then the clip is already finished, so I almost miss the message this witness has to offer.

In my opinion, the editor of the film should have given the viewer a bit more time with each witness that is interviewed. There are too many soundbites: five seconds and cut! Ten seconds and cut! Why does the editor insist on going so fast? I believe the editor as well as the director want us to understand what is being said here, so why don’t they give us the time we need to process the contents of the film?

PART THREE

There is good news and bad news here. The bad news is that the employee was unable to get anywhere using the official chain of command. The warning was ignored. The good news is that the story was eventually made public and in some cases, the warning was taken seriously and the problem was solved (but this did not happen in all cases).

The good news also is that some reporters and some media outlets were prepared to listen and bring the story to the public. Some of them appear as witnesses in this film.

For the whistleblowers there is also good news and bad news. The bad news is that that they suffered, because they lost their jobs. Their families also suffered, because it was difficult for the whistleblowers to provide for their families in the same way as they had done before.

The good news is that the whistleblowers survive and that they are able to tell their story. They have a clear conscience, but they paid a high price for doing the right thing.

CONCLUSION

I like this film and I want to give it a good rating, but there is a flaw which cannot be ignored. I have to remove one star because of this. This is why I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

War on Whistleblowers is an important film about an important topic. If you are interested in the history of the modern world – in particular the question of freedom and human rights – then this film is something for you.

PS # 1. For more information and more details, see the following items:

** The Spy Factory (2009). This is an episode in the PBS program NOVA that focuses on the history of science and technology (season 36, episode 11)

** United States of Secrets (2014). This is an episode of the PBS program Frontline which focuses on the news (season 32, episodes 9 and 10)

** Citizen Four (2014). This is a documentary film about Edward Snowden directed by Laura Poitras

PS # 2. To find more details, you can visit the website of the company behind the film. Here is a link: Brave New Films.

PS # 3. The following article is available online: 

Dana Liebelson, 

“New Film Explores Obama’s War on Whistleblowers and the Free Press,”  

Mother Jones, 

10 April 2013.

*****

 

 

United States of Secrets (2014)

United States of Secrets is a documentary film that was shown on US television (PBS) in May 2014: two episodes of the long-running program Frontline, which focuses on the news (season 32, episodes 9 and 10). Here is some basic information about it:

** Part one – “The Program” - 116 minutes

** Written by Michael Kirk and Mike Wiser; directed by Michael Kirk

 

** Part two – “Privacy Lost” - 54 minutes

** Written and directed by Martin Smith

 

** Both parts are narrated by Will Lyman

** Total running time: 170 minutes

This is the story of the US intelligence organisation the National Security Agency (NSA) and the whistleblower Edward Snowden. Actually, the controversial whistleblower does not feature prominently in this film. He is only seen and/or mentioned in the beginning of part one and at the end of part two. But Snowden and his dramatic decision to leak thousands of classified US documents is an important reason for producing this film about the NSA and its activities.

It is a long and thorough film. Many aspects are covered here. In this review I can only mention a few of them. It is also a balanced film. We get to see and hear both sides of the story as we listen to the numerous witnesses who were interviewed.

On one side we have witnesses who worked for the NSA and/or the government and who defend their actions.

On the other side we have the critical voices. Some of them belong to people who used to work for the NSA, but who became convinced that the NSA was and is breaking the law and violating the US constitution with its massive monitoring of communications all over the world, including communications in the US.

When they speak out against the organisation for which they used to work they are known as whistleblowers, who report waste, fraud or abuse in a government institution. Other critical voices belong to people, who have studied the NSA from the outside and who feel that the whistleblowers support their suspicions about the activities of this organisation.

The list of witnesses is quite long, but it included here in order to demonstrate just how serious and comprehensive this investigation is. Frontline was able to find a large number of people, who were ready to talk about this issue in front of a camera. Some of them are insiders who had high positions in the political and/or bureaucratic system, so we can assume that they know what they are talking about. Here is the list in the order of appearance.

WITNESSES IN PART ONE

** Luke Harding, reporter, the Guardian

** Glenn Greenwald, reporter, the Guardian, 2012-2013

** Barton Gellman, reporter, Washington Post

** Ewen Macaskill, reporter, the Guardian

** Michael Hayden, NSA director, 1999-2005

** Vito Potenza, NSA, deputy general counsel, 1993-2006

** J. Kirk Wiebe, NSA, senior analyst, 1975-2001 (one of the critical voices)

** James Bamford, author of The Shadow Factory (2008, 2009)

** Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel, 2001-2005

** Peter Baker, reporter, New York Times

** Ryan Lizza, reporter, the New Yorker

** Edward Loomis, NSA, cryptologist, 1964-2001 (one of the critical voices)

** Andrew Card, White House chief of staff, 2001-2006

** Robert Deitz, NSA, general counsel, 1998-2006

** Jane Mayer, reporter, the New Yorker

** Thomas Drake, NSA, senior executive, 2001-2008 (one of the critical voices)

** William Binney, NSA, technical director, 1965-2001 (one of the critical voices)

** Porter Goss, chairman, House Intelligence Committee, 1997-2004

** Diane Roark, staff, House Intelligence Committee, 1985-2002 (one of the critical voices)

** Patrick Radden Keefe, author of Chatter (2006)

** Thomas Tamm, attorney, Department of Justice, 1998-2006 (one of the critical voices)

** Michael Isikoff, reporter, Newsweek, 1994-2010

** Jack Goldsmith, office of legal counsel, 2003-2004

** Eric Lichtblau, reporter, New York Times

** James Risen, reporter, New York Times

** Philip Taubman, DC bureau chief, New York Times, 2003-2007

** Bill Keller, executive director, New York Times, 2003-2011

** Siobhan Gorman, reporter, Baltimore Sun, 2005-2007

** Jesselyn Radack, Thomas Drake’s attorney

** Richard Clarke, first: Obama campaign advisor; later: a member of the White House NSA review group

** Ben Rhodes, first: Obama campaign speech writer; later: deputy national security advisor

** Matthew Olsen, director, National Counter-Terrorism Center

ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN PART TWO

** John De Long, NSA, director of compliance

** Tim Wu, Columbia Law School, author of The Master Switch (2011, 2012)

** Stephen Levy, reporter, Wired, author of several books about computers and the internet

** Ashkan Soltani, reporter, Washington Post

** Stewart Baker, assistant secretary, Homeland Security, 2005-2009

** Andrew McLaughlin, director, global public policy, Google, 2004-2009

** Matthew Green, cryptographer, Johns Hopkins University

** Mark Klein, AT & T technician, 1981-2004

** Chris Hoofnagle, director, UC Berkeley, Center for Law and Technology

** Julia Angwin, author of Dragnet Nation (2014, 2015)

** Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist, ACLU

** Nick Merrill, CEO, Calyx

** Jennifer Valentino-Devries, reporter, Wall Street Journal

** Robert Gellman, privacy expert

** Liz Figueroa, Democrat, State Senator, California, 1998-2006

THE ROLE OF THE NSA

Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and other locations in September 2001, the leaders of the US government and the leaders of the NSA met to discuss how wide the scope of NSA activities should be.

When the politicians suggested that it should be as wide as possible, the leaders of the NSA explained that it might be a violation of the constitution to monitor communications within the US. In response, the US president issued a secret order which declared that a wide scope was legal. This project became known as “the Program.” Hence the title of the first part of this film.

As time went on, some members of staff realised what was going on and they felt it was wrong. At first they tried to use the official chain of command to voice their concerns, but they were rebuffed:

“Do not worry about it.”

“What we are doing is legal and effective.”

In 2004 reporters at the New York Times got wind of the issue: was the NSA conducting illegal wiretapping of US citizens? They believed the answer was yes and they wanted to run the story, but when the paper contacted the White House for a comment, they were asked not to run the story. Not because it was false, but because it might damage the national security of the US. The editors bowed to the pressure and the story was dropped. This was not exactly the finest hour of the newspaper. However, one year later, when the reporters had discovered additional evidence, the editors decided to go ahead and run the story in spite of objections from the White House.

During the Bush administration, whistleblowers who spoke about the NSA, were considered as criminals and traitors and they were investigated with much vigour. These investigations were continued during the Obama administration in spite of Obama’s public support for whistleblowers.

One of the whistleblowers (Thomas Drake) was threatened with a sentence of 35 years in prison. This action showed other potential whistleblowers what to expect if they went ahead and spoke out against the US government. In the end, all charges (except one minor infraction) were dropped, because the government realised that they did not have a real case against the defendant.

United States of Secrets is a thorough investigation of the NSA and its activities. The film presents the basic dilemma. On one side we have the national security argument, which says: let the NSA do whatever it can do to keep America safe. On the other side we have concepts such as freedom, human rights, and the right to privacy, which are supposed to be fundamental values of the US political system.

The US government and the NSA say:

 

“We just want to keep America safe. How can you be against that? Why don’t you let us do the job?”

 

The critics say:

 

“We think you are breaking the law and violating the constitution when you monitor everybody and everything without probable cause and without a court order.”

With classified documents released by Snowden, the critics were able to prove their point. They could show that the government was doing precisely what it claimed it was not doing.

Meanwhile, Edward Snowden is living in Moscow. Having leaked thousands of classified documents, and having revealed his identity, he wanted to travel from Hong Kong to Latin America, but when he got to Moscow, the US government revoked his passport, and he was unable to travel anywhere.

The Russian government granted him asylum, so he can stay there for a while. But it is not clear what will happen to him if the asylum is not extended or if he were to leave Russia on a new passport.

CONCLUSION

The information presented in this film is important, some observers might even describe it as alarming and disturbing, but it seems to be credible, because it is supported by evidence and presented by people who seem to know what they are talking about.

If you are interested in the history of the modern world – in particular rise of the national security state and the question of human rights – then this film is definitely something for you.

PS # 1. For more information, see the following films:

** The Spy Factory (2009) (a documentary film about the NSA before and after September 2001, written and produced by James Bamford)

** War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State (2013) (a documentary film directed by Robert Greenwald) (the cases of Thomas Drake and Thomas Tamm are covered in this film)

** Citizen Four (2014) (a documentary film about Edward Snowden directed by Laura Poitras)

PS # 2. For more details, see the following books:

** The Snowden Files by Luke Harding (2014)

** No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden and the Surveillance State by Glenn Greenwald (2014, 2015)

Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State by Barton Gellman (to be released in July 2016)

PS # 3. The following articles are available online:

** Brian Lowry, “TV Review: Frontline’s The United States of secrets,” Variety, 11 May 2014

** Lance Dickie, “PBS Frontline’s United States of Secrets must be watched,” Seattle Times, 15 May 2014

** Paul Szoldra, “The Most Interesting Revelations from Frontline’s Powerful Exposé of the NSA,” Business Insider, 20 May 2014

PS # 4. Thomas Drake’s attorney Jesselyn Radack is herself a whistleblower. Google her name to find more information about her and the cases in which she has been involved.

 

***

Click on this image to visit PBS.
 

***