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. 

Who's in charge? How Assad & Syria control the greatest stake in the Middle East

The facts speak for themselves.  If you look at the numbers above, Syria is a global embarrassment into how a country should be allowed to operate.  The tyranny and brutal justice of Bashar Assad are on clear display for the world to see.  

16, 321 killed in 451 days.  (1,226 children, 1,150 women)

65,000 others missing.

212,000 detained.

1,000,000 internally displaced.

200,000 refugees.

1.4 million at risk of famine.

And what is Bashar Assad doing to fix this?  Nothing.  He is too concerned with hanging onto power that he simply does not have.  His ability to govern is nonexistent, and his will to govern has been diverted into handling an uprising that he can not handle without sheer force.

The real question now is how long must we allow this movement to go on without our President, Secretary of State, ambassadors in the region, even uttering a word to honor those who have lost their lives trying to bring a change that this administration welcomed gladly in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt even.  The pressure quickly mounted when the U.S. withdrew any support for longtime regional partner Hosni Mubarak, yet an Iranian puppet like Assad does not even gain mention in a White House press briefing.  

This President knows what is at stake if Assad falls.  It may not be pretty, but it is worth a chance to support this potential change.  Without Assad, a TRULY free Lebanon could emerge - dismembering the results of the 2008 civil war which installed a Hezbollah-led Parliament and President - and bring a legitimate government unifying all religions and sects.  A new Lebanon without Hezbollah (which is suffering internal dissent over finance mismanagement and its leadership) and a new Syria led by the people and not governed by an heir to the throne, will change the region.  Iran's largest proxies will have been diminished, no longer giving terror groups like Hezbollah the authority they once held (Hezbollah controlled many social services in the country, generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue for the group capitalizing on everything from garbage collecting to electricity, which sparked the 2008 civil way when the Lebanese government attempted to shut off the group's secure telecommunication network, which was declared an act of war by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah). 

 All of this means that in order to sustain its ability to defend itself using its proxy network, Iran's estimated $200 million annually given to terror groups may have to increase...and its terror networks regroup.  Safe havens once held in Lebanon will now be free societies, capable of challenging Iranian meddling.  This is exactly what is needed to counter Hezbollah, which many terror experts have labeled for almost a decade as terrorism's "A-team", leading Al-Qaida in expertise.  

Why then have we allowed the people of Lebanon and Syria, approximately 25 million, to be denied an opportunity to create a new future for the youths?  Why must they have to wait another day?  How come we have outsourced any responsibility as a global leader to help resolve the problem to Russia, who has a longstanding partnership with Iran and Syria in military contracts that are probably being used in the daily bloodbaths on the streets of Homs?  Not to sound cynical, but Vladimir Putin knows probably better than anyone else how much money his country has to gain from arming Bashar Assad with Russian arms and military systems, why would he give the bat of an eye to the numbers inside Syria?  

This situation can not and will not be resolved inside the United Nations.  Rather it will be met, similar in World War II, by the dedication and partnership of freedom loving countries who challenge a power hungry menace and protect those who can not protect themselves.  The time to stop this madness is overdue, but it is clear that Assad has enough backing to hold onto whatever power he still yields, which is only through killing any dissenters.