Tools Against Terror

The best summary of the attitude regarding those who are in an uproar over the NSA story is this one by Dr. Walid Phares writing on The Counterterrorism Blog: Catch them, but do not watch them!..

While jihadist cells are constantly spying to find chinks in America’s infrastructure, President Bush’s critics are concerned about how America is watching the terrorists. So far, I haven’t heard a critic asking who are we watching? Or anyone requesting an update as to how many terrorists are within the U.S. So, in sum, they want the government to “catch” the terrorists but not to “watch” them. I must admit that if the 9/11 Commission was right on target regarding some fellow Americans; it is about “lack of imagination.” For till further notice, I am not able to figure out how the U.S. can catch the jihadist terrorists if it doesn’t monitor them. And how can the defense and security institutions monitor an enemy in a state of war, if it provides them with the knowledge and the technology it is using.

What is a part of every TOM story is the implication about how the President is spying on Americans. Press reports leave me with the mental picture of President Bush sitting in the White House with a set of headphones and a notepad, gleefully evesdropping on US citizens. The stories do ususally mention, but hardly emphasize, that the intercepted communications are between those outside of the US and those with, “known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations,” as the President stated in his press conference yesterday.

As you might expect, this is being examined from all directions by a wide variety of people, with widely differing conclusions. One story has this:

“I think they were aggressive,” said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

“Were they right? Here, I think context matters. Within six months, 12 months of the attacks, I think that the AUMF (authorization law) would have been a basis for legal authority,” he said. “But that diminishes the further we are from the attacks.”

Michael Nardotti, a former Army judge advocate general, said the administration may need to release more information about attacks that the spying program prevented. “I don’t think passage of time should be the guide,” he said. “It should be the continuing assessment of the threat.”

Totally different views within three paragraphs.

We are an information obsessed society. I am clearly no exception. Still, the important question that I think needs to be answered is how this leak occured. I would much rather get that cleared up before we get our panties in a wad about watching those with the intention of harming us.

Maybe that’s just me.

I doubt it.

Linked with Breakfast at basil’s blog.

Tweet