How odd and alarming it is in the post 9/11 world, to note that secret intelligence and security operations are no longer an acceptable practice in america. Known for the most complex and effective national defense systems in the world, america seems to be having its biggest problems keeping its covert defense operations, well, covert.
In the name of open disclosure, or maybe more specifically, political "Gotcha-ism", the american press seems to take great pride in outing what are supposed to be Top Secret national security operations. at a time of great political division evidenced by the daily barrage of bare-knuckled rhetorical headlines attacking all facets of government, in particular the current administration, it isn't tough to find some disgruntled malcontent doing time behind a CIa or NSa desk, willing to be the latest un-named source in a new form of political dissent. In fact, if you want to keep anything secret today, you had better not tell it to anyone working for our nation's Top Secret agencies…
The latest story involves an NSa data-mining effort aimed at intercepting communications between known al Qaeda cells operating outside american borders and people currently residing in america. The pros call them "sleeper cells". Silent, invisible members of multiple international terrorist organizations, or just plain, old fashioned, home-grown sympathizers, living in average american neighborhoods, leading seemingly normal american lives, laying low below radar, planning and plotting the next 9/11.
Even stranger is the fact that the very same people who over-criticize our intelligence and defense community for NOT effectively unraveling the pre-911 puzzle in order to prevent that horrible day, are now busy outing every governmental agency effort to stop the next 9/11.
Now partisans see this as only a politically motivated effort to undermine a President unpopular with many Ivy League professional snoops working inside these agencies and their liberal elitist friends running most news rooms in america these days. To be sure, these stories become huge headlines for the purpose of at least exploiting these opportunities for political gain. But the root motives may be far more insidious.
Previously fired former NSa employee Russ Tice is the latest whistleblower to pull the mask off the ole Lone Ranger. Tice sent letters to both houses of Congress December 16, 2005, the same day the New York Times ran its explosive "eavesdropping" story, stating "I intend to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with the National Security agency and with the Defense Intelligence agency."
"These ... acts were conducted via very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as Special access Programs", Mr. Tice said. But apparently, it wasn't that sensitive since Mr. Tice decided to tell the New York Times before telling members of Congress. The same thing happened regarding abu Ghraib and those still uncovered CIa torture camps hidden around the globe.
There is a certain familiarity to Tice's pattern here. We have seen this pattern before, with growing regularity of late. First, Tice was fired from the NSa the prior year. In the real world, this alone makes everything he might later claim against his former employer, suspect at best.
Then there is the question of why tell the news media before telling Congressional oversight committees? If Mr. Tice was simply concerned with the legitimacy of the program, knowing it was a Top Secret national security effort, why go public first? Why do so a year or so later, instead of the day after he was fired from the agency? and exactly why was he fired?
These seemingly obvious questions aren't being asked anywhere in the lamestream press that I can find. Yet these questions are as important to the foundation (and credibility) of this story as the story itself. We all remember the consequences of other stories run without first asking similar questions. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes in what turned out to be a bogus effort to discredit Bush's Guard service by an easily debunked un-named source. The Koran flushing story that turned out not true, but only after people died in the riots that resulted from the bogus headlines, just to name a couple.
The two primary beneficiaries of Plame-Gate were Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, who are today, richer beyond their wildest dreams from their star status and book deals. Few knew either's name or face before Wilson himself made both household fixtures.
The irresponsible reporting habits of today's lamestream press are unconscionable. But back to point… Exactly what tools should be employed to stop the next 9/11 and what should happen to so-called whistleblowers who seek fame, fortune or political gain from outing Top Secret national security operations?
There is good reason to believe that the Bush administration did nothing wrong or illegal in their efforts to intercept terrorist related communications. Congressional oversight was briefed on the activities every step of the way though few admit it now. The Justice Department has issued a formal statement supporting the legality and necessity of the now not-so-secret NSa operation.
Ranking Democrat On The House Intelligence Committee Representative Jane Harman (D-Ca) Calls The NSa Program "Essential" To Targeting al Qaeda. "as the Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSa foreign collection program that targeted al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to US national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities." (Rep. Jane Harman, Harman Statement on NSa Electronic Surveillance Program, Press Release, 12/21/05)
Though the same old Democrats seek to make political hay by exploiting the story as further evidence of a renegade administration, the average american seems to grasp the fact that our intelligence community is designed and obligated to use all reasonable means to collect and piece together a puzzle that could prevent events worse than 9/11. They understand that such efforts can only work in secret. Most are more concerned with what appears to be a wholesale effort to out the entire counter-terrorism effort and are increasingly frustrated by a general lack of responsible reporting by our illustrious press corp.
There is every reason to believe that the administration would have been irresponsible and reckless had they not taken every reasonable measure to intercept such communications. There is also every reason to believe that attempting to keep such efforts secret through partisan channels would jeopardize any such operation. Even as careful as they allegedly were to work in secrecy, here we are discussing our nation's most guarded secrets in the public square.
Those who know my body of work know that few in america are more concerned with modern threats on our freedoms and liberties. But I am even more concerned with the current wholesale leaking of all counter-terrorism efforts and the press's willingness to report all without even questioning the credibility of the whistleblower.
The same reckless press just notified 12 families that their loved ones survived an explosion in a West Virginia coal mine, only to hours later apologize for getting it completely wrong in their rush to press.
Our headlines have been aiding and abetting our enemies without direct repercussions for some time now and if we are serious about defending the homeland and our way of life, we will have to put a stop to it.
With every freedom and liberty comes an inherent responsibility to use it wisely. The press nearly never gets that right anymore. But if we can't trust those who work inside our secret agencies to get it right, to keep their own secrets, who can we trust and how can we defend this nation?
I'm sure our enemies find some humor in our inability to stop fighting ourselves long enough to fight them. Personally, I find no humor in the matter at all…and I see nothing patriotic about any of these folks.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement