![]() Unfortunately, I think Sullivan overestimates how much the United States will gain by spying on fighters in Iraq, and how important the NSA is to stopping terrorist attacks within the United States. The reforms that "NSA-haters" advocate are not at all inconsistent with a signals-intelligence agency that uses the most intrusive methods imaginable to target the communications of ISIS fighters. Or to move away from the several NSA programs that blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans-how many terrorist attacks do you think have been stopped by spying on the content of virtually every phone call made in the Bahamas? In the majority of cases, traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or evidence to initiate the case, according to the study by the New America Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit group. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that the bulk collection of phone records by the National Security Agency “has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.” What we do know is that the specific programs that "NSA-haters" complain about most have no track record stopping terrorism.Īn analysis of 225 terrorism cases inside the United States since the Sept. But can he prove it? Or is he making a huge assumption without any evidence to justify it? I'd like to contest that general statement, pending further evidence. Sullivan asserts that "spying is one of our strongest and least disruptive tools in preventing attacks on the homeland." Really? How does he know that? Maybe he's right. ![]() And if they could, that would be a lot more dangerous than terrorism. The NSA didn't stop the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber or the shoe bomber either. It's a statement about the limits of signals intelligence. And even if the seeming surprise is an illusion, even if the NSA anticipated the fall of cities to Islamic militants, knowing didn't stop it. That said, events in Iraq seem to have taken us by surprise, despite the fact that the NSA is totally unencumbered, both legally and politically, in the intelligence it can gather there. ![]() Events in Iraq seem to have taken us by surprise, despite the fact that the NSA is totally unencumbered, legally and politically, in the intelligence it can gather there. Spying on ISIS, however intrusively, is fine by me. Without presuming to speak for any individual, the typical "NSA-hater" would love nothing more than for the NSA to focus its intelligence capabilities on war zones where anti-American fighters plausibly threaten the lives of soldiers or diplomatic personnel, and away from Angela Merkel and every cell-phone call Americans make. First off, note that not even the staunchest critics of the NSA, from Edward Snowden to Glenn Greenwald to Senator Ron Wyden to Representative Justin Amash, want to eliminate the agency or prevent it from spying on foreign terrorists or soldiers. ![]() This gets a few things wrong that matter very much to the ongoing debate about the NSA. If there is something we can do, it should be to ratchet up our ability to monitor these groups-sorry, NSA-haters, but spying is one of our strongest and least disruptive tools in preventing attacks on the homeland-and to provide as much diplomatic and political advice, if asked, as to how to render the situation less volatile. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |