Making the Case for NSA Surveillance—At Last

[Commentary] Gen. Michael Hayden, a former chief of the NSA and CIA, recently criticized the media's treatment of the NSA documents stolen by Edward Snowden, the former contractor who fled to Russia. He called coverage "agendaed," citing especially the work of Glenn Greenwald in Britain's Guardian. Blaming the media puts journalists on the defensive, but Gen. Hayden is right. Greenwald has been clear that he writes to further an agenda. So do we columnists, but readers should know which they're getting.

Intentionally or not, the early reporting of the Snowden documents left the impression that the NSA routinely monitors Americans' phone calls and emails. In fact, elaborate "minimization" rules limit surveillance to foreign suspects. The NSA is also accused of acting lawlessly. In fact, it operates under numerous openly debated and adopted laws such as the Patriot Act. Gen. Hayden said Americans should understand the limits on surveillance, but warned: "This is not ancient Athens; this is not a direct democracy. It is a representative democracy. So although I'm saying there are more things that should be made public, there will be some things only the [congressional intelligence] committees will know." There are costs to making such details public, but the benefit is that the better Americans understand how the NSA operates, the less they will see the U.S. as a "surveillance state." They will see serious efforts to protect privacy while still gathering and connecting the dots to prevent another 9/11.