Impediments to Counterterrorism Efforts in the United States

By Dennis Lormel

Why was the PATRIOT Act enacted? Why does the CIA operate secret detention and intelligence facilities? Why has the number of National Security Letters issued by the FBI increased significantly? The answer is simple�to preserve national security and prevent another 9/11.

Apparently, select interest groups in the United States have either lost sight of this undisputable fact or have chosen to disregard it in deference to their parochial agendas. Unfortunately, over the past few weeks, considerable public attention focused on the PATRIOT Act, CIA secret facilities and FBI National Security Letters�dangerously casting each in the wrong light and threatening their continuity.

In the aftermath of 9/11, why hasn�t the United States suffered another terrorist attack? The aggressive response of the United States government has been a deterrent to terrorism, with initiatives to include military action, diplomatic efforts, regulatory oversight, and investigative and intelligence strategies. A significant element of this response has been aggressive investigative and intelligence collection of terrorist related information. The PATRIOT Act, CIA black sites and intelligence centers, and National Security Letters have been germane to the success of investigative and intelligence initiatives.

When reasonable people cut through the rhetoric and spin, and let the actual facts get in the way, they see the importance of the tools and methodologies used to collect intelligence information. There are very sensitive circumstances and considerations at stake. Elements of the PATRIOT Act, as well as investigative and intelligence strategies, merit debate, review and modification. However, we shouldn�t allow these elements to overshadow the overall benefits of the PATRIOT Act and investigative and intelligence strategies.

The PATRIOT Act is vital to our national security. Much criticism has been focused on the haste with which the PATRIOT Act was initially passed and on certain provisions, which are perceived to infringe on individual rights and freedoms. Taken in the proper context, the Patriot Act makes rational sense. Most importantly, the PATRIOT Act has been a success and has facilitated law enforcement and intelligence operations on many fronts, while not infringing on civil liberties. One would hope that Congress would get off the dime and ensure the provisions of the PATRIOT Act due to expire are reauthorized. Lawmakers responsible for holding up reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act should be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.

The recent series of articles appearing in the Washington Post, first addressing the CIA black sites around the world and then describing the CIA joint intelligence centers, with foreign intelligence services in select countries, deserve comment. The black sites have evoked the questions of detainee rights and torture. No one should advocate torture, but the value of these detentions cannot be dismissed. In either event, publishing this story line in all likelihood will cause these operations to be discontinued or greatly diminished. Invaluable human intelligence information will be lost as a result. Likewise, publishing the story about the joint intelligence centers could hamper their continuity. That raises the question�did publishing these stories serve the public �need to know� or disrupt and diminish collection of critical intelligence necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks? When the next attacks occur, and a new �9/11� Commission is created, I would hope that the Washington Post be taken to task to justify publication of sensitive, if not classified, information.

The issue of National Security Letters should be a non-issue. Instead of viewing the FBI as being abusive, the FBI should be given credit for demonstrating they have transformed themselves to prioritize counterintelligence and counterterrorism. Those individuals who suggest that the number of National Security Letters served by FBI Agents was, or could be, abusive should take deeper reflection. In reality, people who strap explosives around their waist and walk into a subway station or hotel and kill innocent people are abusive, not to mention irreprehensible.

Time and again, I�ve heard impassioned rhetoric that we cannot sacrifice our rights and freedoms at any cost. Does that include dying in a terrorist attack? Unquestionably, freedom is our sacred right. However, 9/11 changed life forever. We live in a very dangerous and unstable world, under constant threat. Our personal safety and security warrant reassessment of our personal rights.

The interest groups that argue vehemently against and/or distort the PATRIOT Act and the investigative and intelligence methodologies of the CIA and FBI appear to lose perspective of the fact that the terrorists are the bad guys, very bad guys. The FBI, CIA, military and all other agencies involved in fighting and preventing terrorism are the good guys. They deserve the benefit of tools that enable them to succeed and to do so lawfully and consistently with sensitivity to civil liberties.

I�d encourage the dissenters to turn their scorn away from the United States government and focus their animosity on the terrorists. The good guys in this fight, the military, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, Treasury, State and others deserve our respect and admiration. The terrorists deserve our scorn.

TrackBack