Spying On Americans?

Are we really in the midst of a Civil Liberties Debacle? Or is it, as the President proposes, a necessary tool used to protect the peoples of the United States from future attacks like those of 9-11?

At the heart of the present debate is the presidents admitted authorization of the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of individuals either connected to, or suspected of terrorist activity. First, the NSA is chartered to collect intelligence in ordered to protect the citizens of this country. Second, the President is mandated by our Constitution with the protection of the people. This does not happen in a vacuum.

The first distinction that we must make is that between detection of wrongdoing and the monitoring of American citizens. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has jurisdiction of the authorization of warrants allowing domestic law enforcement agencies to monitor suspected terrorists activity. However before a warrant can be obtained to monitor a citizen within the territorial borders of this country, proof must be shown that said monitoring is warranted. In point of fact, my review of a CRS document titled the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004 outlines a fairly stringent standard of proof to obtain a warrant for surveillance. Accordingly, before one can monitor someone, it is fairly important to determine the reasons for the warrant. It falls on the President, by constitutional edict, to determine where threats might be coming from and begin the process to prosecute them.

Now, the mainstream media (MSM), Specifically the New York Times, would have you believe that the President, on his own authority, without properly notifying congress, began monitoring American's conversation without obtaining a FISA warrant. In the first place, conversation between Americans within the borders of this country, still require the government to obtain a warrant from FISC before monitoring begins. The administrations plan to detect terrorist threats were born out of the tragedies of September 11, 2000. Additionally, based on the enemy's known ability to adapt methodologies and communication strategies, we had to find faster ways in which to determine the necessity of surveillance.

Many, if not all of the communications being checked on were recovered from laptop's and cell phones recovered from know AL-Qaida operatives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Evidence was likely found that these individuals were conversing with potential terrorist operatives in the United States. FISC warrants were requested and approved over 10,000 times to monitor individuals once it was determined that it was indeed necessary. The oversight on a program to detect possible threats of this nature rest solely on the President, the NSA, and the Justice Department. In keeping with the separation of powers engendered in the constitution, the Senators on the Intelligence committee were notified of this program and it's secrecy requirements.

The disclosure of secret operations designed to ultimately protect our citizens from future attacks by individuals residing within our midst is at best treasonous act in time of war. The New York Times in waiting to release this information in concert with the release of a book by the bylined reporter and right before the scheduled vote on the Patriot Act is unconscionable. Its almost as if this books author and the NYT want to once again cripple our ability to detect and stop another attack on our country. Further questions beg to be asked as well. In as much as the NYT seems to be an arm of the DNC, is this the same kind of irresponsibility we can expect from those politicians whom they support? Are we to believe that we must return to that same system spawned by the likes of Jaime Gorellic pre 9-11? These my friends are the questions that must be answered at the ballot box.