NSA Surveillance and the decline of the War on Terror

Without a doubt we are seeing the Global War on Terror decreasing overseas, and in many ways at home as well.  As President Obama attempted to calm the storm by calling for greater transparency and opening up aspects of surveillance techniques to public debate, many Americans still fear that we are living in an Orwellian novel of 1984.  The reality simply is that such a move would counter and defeat the premise of surveillance at its most basic level - that good surveillance should go unnoticed until it demands a response by the entity conducting it.  Basically, until there is actionable and operational intelligence, surveillance is a tool to aid in building  enough information to prosecute a case.  Much of the hyped up cases discussed by the media are framed by a bunch of "what ifs" that simply have no backing. 


The programs in question are not some randomly concocted fantasy by power-hungry tyrants in a cubicle.  Despite what liberals and conservatives think of our president, previous and present, the "big government" portrayals of both President Obama and his predecessor have no basis in this argument.  Neither one of them has been a federal agent, or an analyst, or may not even speak another language.  The men and women who fill these positions in our government have taken a sworn oath to protect and defend our country and Constitution.  With the exception of one, Edward Snowden, their work sits protected by a layer of oversight and personal accountability to protect all of the information that they collect and receive until such a case can be made to act on it. 


The NSA surveillance program is simply a means to an end.  That being said, no criminal case has ever been built off of such a technique.  This is similar to let's just say, license plate readers on local law enforcement vehicles or a polygraph.  These are tools that can trigger and help determine the path an officer takes in the merits of an investigation, but if taken to court with the data either one of those tools delivers, has absolutely no basis and will get laughed out of court.  A person can be driving a stolen vehicle, but if it's an old lady who bought it from a shady car dealer, she can't go to jail.  You can pass a polygraph but still be guilty of a crime in question.  Unless there is evidence for the crime in question though, there is no case. 


Government surveillance is in place for a reason.  It works.  There have been no known instances where anyone has complained that the government has collected too much information and gone on a dumbfounded witch-hunt.  Is that because the programs our so secretive?  Or is it because the government has properly separated actionable and useful intelligence amongst the millions of intercepts that are conducted annually?  In the coming weeks as we assess government's responsibility with personal information, it is my hope that the critics will have an open mind to understand how useful most, if not all the developed programs, have been in keeping the U.S. safe. 


Just a side note, our enemy is constantly developing strategies to bypass having communications filtered through by the in question programs.  Take into consideration that the Mumbai attacks that occurred in November 2008 were planned by individuals who corresponded through a single e-mail account and would not send e-mails, but rather save them as a draft.  Through one user name and one password, the cell was able to communicate and avoid triggering a red flag in a means of communication that may have been monitored.  One must wonder with the information Edward Snowden revealed, how many people may die in a future attack due to him revealing information.  Without a doubt, our enemies are presently, if not already revamping techniques to avoid detection.