Impediments to Making Us Safer

By Dennis Lormel

On September 12, I posted an article on the Counterterrorism Blog addressing the question “are we safer as a nation now than we were before 9/11”. I stated that we were safer but not safe, which is a prevailing theme. I attributed our safety, in great part, to the government agencies at the federal, state and local level, which are responsible for protecting us against the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, there are impediments which make protecting us a more difficult task, thereby jeopardizing our safety.

Three diverse groups fit into this category. They are select members of the media, certain members of Congress and organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). One sentiment they all have in common is extreme distrust of the agencies charged with protecting us. Invariably, they act with distain, distrust and venom when questioning or complaining about the motives and methodologies employed by various agencies, especially the CIA and FBI. What this group fails to realize, or chooses to ignore, is the government agencies, including the CIA and FBI, are not the bad guys. Terrorists are the bad guys. They plan to attack us on our homeland. The techniques utilized by the agencies have evolved in an effort to ensure we receive the highest level of protection possible.

I do not advocate torture or violating anyone’s civil rights. I do advocate using any and all tools within the framework of the law to help ensure our safety and wellbeing. Since Mike McConnell has been the Director of National Security, he has articulated the need for the government to have the authority to monitor and eavesdrop on communications channels. Director Hayden of the CIA and Director Mueller of the FBI have also articulated the need for enhanced techniques. In Director Mueller’s case, this includes the use of National Security Letters (NSLs). Detractors of these programs, including the nearsighted group above, fail to understand that these techniques are not abusive or overly intrusive. Instead of being close minded, they should study the language and methodology of the techniques. In so doing, they would learn that the government’s intent is righteous not devious. They should keep in the forefront of their mind the fact that the intent of terrorists is devious and not righteous.

With respect to each group identified above, following the next attack we experience in the United States, they should be summoned to testify before the new 9/11 Commission. One of the problems with the above group is the lack of accountability. Each component of the group should answer the following questions:

Select members of the media: why is it incumbent on you to disclose investigative techniques vital to national security? Didn’t you realize in exposing such techniques you were facilitating terrorism? Was your quest of the Pulitzer Prize worth the price the government paid by having techniques compromised?

Certain members of Congress: instead of making grandiose statements about taking away government authority when there are allegations of misuse, why don’t you actually determine the facts and realize that most allegations are inaccurate or overblown? Why don’t you work with the government by providing the appropriate oversight and pass laws that protect the civil liberties of our citizenry, while enabling our government agencies to better perform their duties? Are your disingenuous sound bites for the evening news and the partisan bickering worth undermining national security?

Organizations like the ACLU: was bringing a lawsuit to have NSLs declared unconstitutional worth the disruption to a significant investigative avenue? Was it worth it when information that would have been available through an NSL could have led to the prevention of the terrorist attack? Did you purposely espouse an argument about NSLs that was misleading by painting NSLs to be abusive and intrusive when in fact they’re not?

Interesting questions. What select media members, certain members of Congress and the ACLU need to understand is that 9/11 changed our lives forever. Those are not hollow words. They are extremely important and meaningful. In this changed and treacherous time, government agencies must think outside the box and be innovative, aggressive and proactive. The above group needs to come to terms with this new reality. Instead of treating the government as the enemy, they should embrace the government and work closely with the government to ensure evolving methodologies are properly implemented and utilized. Most importantly, they should treat the terrorists as our enemies and focus their distain, distrust and venom on them.

TrackBack