Posted on 06/14/2013 4:19:50 AM PDT by Kaslin
After a week of enduring the crossfire over the relative benefits and dangers of the deeds of NSA leaker Edward Snowden, I am left wondering whether this has been good or bad for our nation.
The answer depends on the lens we use for viewing America and the world.
I belong to two groups that are not large enough. The first is the portion of America that is very, very serious about fighting terror. I have not forgotten 9/11 or the fact that its hatchers would love to do it again.
Stopping them has been an all-consuming pursuit for our intelligence gatherers and analysts, and their success rate has been positively stunning.
I also belong to the segment of America that has had it up to the eyeballs with the Obama administration, from the bad policies to the dishonesty to the weak foreign policy to the targeting of political enemies. 2016 cannot get here fast enough for me.
Added up, my result is a general willingness to allow wide latitude in surveillance, tempered by concerns over its possible abuse.
I had the very same position as the Patriot Act was being hammered out while smoke still rose from Ground Zero. The deciding factor in my decision to support it was the faith I placed in George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to use that information to catch terrorists without spying on my phone calls and e-mails.
In the wake of the IRS disaster, the Benghazi deceptions and the basketful of other scandals-in-waiting, it is very hard to similarly trust this administration as it holds that intelligence apparatus in its hands.
But I will. For now.
I am able to do so because unlike the IRS, which was easily corruptible with its ranks of employees eager to please a boss who demonized Tea Party groups at every turn, our intelligence services operate in another landscape. They are not so easily tainted.
Unlike Snowden, who decided to recoil at tactics that have kept us safe, the average NSA analyst is proud to be part of the effort that has prevented further 9/11s. They are not a lock-step gung-ho robot army, but few are the ones who awaken to suddenly shudder at procedures laid out and practiced for a dozen years.
But Snowden did, and rather than step with courage into an American courtroom to make his case and dare our system to punish him for his perceived heroism, he hunkers in Hong Kong, happy to let its people and its justice system handle his fate.
He is missing out on a certain love-fest he would receive here from Americans more worried about potential Orwellian nightmares than the real threat of Jihad.
There is no doubt that a government that can dig into our phone calls and e-mails can surely ruin our lives if it has a mind to. But the police department that arms its officers can also wantonly kill us. The military that fights our wars could also order us into concentration camps.
Here’s an idea: How about if we wait for abuse to occur before we lament it?
The IRS story is a blatant example of government overreach brought to bear to the detriment of a president’s political enemies. It happened. All we have to do is get to the bottom of how.
The NSA panic is all based on what people with all of those security clearances could do, might do, if their motives turned dark.
Show me a litany of people whose lives have been needlessly assaulted by NSA snoopers, and I’ll jump onto the indignation wagon with Snowden, Rand Paul and his Dad, and anybody else up there weaving stories of “turnkey tyranny.”
Until then, the only thing I want to say to Ed Snowden’s besmirched colleagues is: thank you.
Thank you for the painstaking work you do every day on the off chance that a call that looks innocent today looks very different when a number shows up on the phone of the terrorist we catch tomorrow.
The voices raised in alarm over this practice either don’t know or don’t care that dots cannot be connected unless you have all the dots.
This is not to say that their concern is without merit. Privacy is a basic demand of citizens overseen by a powerful government, and it is useful to debate how to balance it against security interests.
But that debate should not be started by an activist narcissist who has soured on his NSA job.
Know who could have started the debate? Our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. On that fateful day in March when Oregon Democrat Senator Ron Wyden asked if government were collecting “any type of data” on millions of Americans, the answer should have been: “Senator, as you know, I can in no way comment on the degree or specifics of the methods we use to gather information in our effort to stop terror attacks.”
At that point, Wyden, or Snowden, or anyone in between could have tried to raise a chorus of dissatisfaction with the fact that secret things need to remain secret.
So as I restrain myself from faulting surveillance tactics under Obama that I favored under Bush, I join the call for similar consistency from the left. Any liberal defending these practices today owes Bush an apology. Joe Biden can start.
Meanwhile, we should all retain our vigilant alertness to misuse of power.
My mistrust of this White House runs deep. But I retain my belief in the countless men and women of the NSA, CIA and other intelligence agencies. Their pursuits are within both reason and the law.
If anyone were to subvert their tasks -- if anyone in authority were to try to use anti-terror investigative tactics to unduly spy on the innocent, we would then have genuine violations of law, and they would be called out by a genuine whistleblower, which Edward Snowden decidedly is not.
Then some of our larger states that REGULATE those common carriers (mostly to collect taxes on cable, wires and telephone poles) CONSOLIDATE the data from all of them.
Big gub'mnt is even a problem at the state level.
FIX the problem at the root ~ then you won't need to waste $45 billion a year on an otherwise useless federal agency.
I do not fear corporate data as corporations cannot put me into prison or audit me.
I fear what the NSA can do with the data they have gathered.
You have done everything but condemn the NSA. You have presented bastardized, Orwellian interpreations of the 4th Amendment. In other words, you are a tool of the statists. And the worst part is, you do it willingly. You're too big a fool for anyone to pay you to write this jibberish.
more recently the USSC opened up concealed carry! I think everybody would agree that what the states were doing earlier was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, so why did we end up needing to go to the USSC with the issue?
There are processes set out in the Constitution we can follow far short of armed insurrection ~ not that anybody here has ever advocated that ~ first amendment, written mostly by John Leland ~ pretty well covers the waterfront.
Regarding NSA in particular, it's just another government agency that consolidated a number of activities back in Jimmy Carter's day. As everyone recalls, Jimmuh was the guy who actually implemented the garbage Senator Church advocated ~ getting rid of all in-country on the ground intelligence operations ~ use lots of spy in the sky satellites ~ tap world communications sources.
Work Church backwards to undo that ~ but until we get control of the technology we've unleased in communications, whether or not we have an NSA the Chicoms have access ......... so does everybody else who wants to spend a lot of money on it.
How long you been here?
Recognize it for what it is. A gross criminal violation of the constitution and crime against all Americans and shut the fricken thing down! And jail the perpetrators including Obama and his jackbooted fascist henchmen (his cabinet)!!
Take it elsewhere, jackass.
Second that.
I think the significant item with Snowden is that similar to Mannnig he was not a NSA or CIA employee. Manning was in the army and had access. Snowden was with a “contractor” and had access.
So we have great loyal citizens working hard to protect our nation in the various agencies. The only problem is that the tools they have been given are so powerful and large that the breaching of safegaurds is possible by contractorsm low level adjacent figures and political hacks with too much authority.
The government must be kept very limited in power for just these reasons. It isn’t the agency employees, patriotic, dedicated and trained that get us, its their consultants, wiremen and janitors.
If the tool you have to kill lawn weeds is a flame thrower you can expect some problems — the tool is too powerful.
Can’t say I disagree ~ but we need to also work backwards through the law and UNDO the Church commission recommendations or we’ll just end up in the same place only the next time they’ll be running a secret command operation under cover of some other agency.
Just shut the fricken thing down! No excuses!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3034664/posts
So a citizen complaining about water quality could be classified as a terrorist. Once considered a possible terrorist, that is now a sufficient threshold to open the database on that person. And low-level analysts can make that call.
Wide open to abuse.
And voicing our opinion to our elected servants are what, a sign of agression and mental illness?
I bet it is.. in Obama’s world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.