Let The Debate Begin – But Let’s Debate Facts

If it were at all possible for people to debate facts and issues for what they really were, wouldn’t things seem a whole lot saner? The debate has been raging for some time now about the President authorizing wire-taps to curb terrorist attacks on the U.S. and abroad. This is a debate that is necessary to be able to determine what is legal and what is not. Through this debate, we should also be able to set more exacting guidelines for future Presidents in matters like these.

If we can, let’s put aside all the rhetoric about power grabbing by the President and how he is listening in on your telephone conversations – all that hyped-up crap! As I see it, we as Americans have a choice to make. Do we risk self-preservation for absolute rights or do we compromise some rights for self-preservation?

Many don’t see it this way. I do. Many have already found the President guilty of breaking the laws and want him impeached. We gave Clinton a chance to testify about his actions first. I think it only fair that we do the same thing here.

We need to try harder to truely understand what has and continues to take place reguarding listening in on terrorist activities. This is an extremely difficult thing to do because so many are so full of hatred toward the President that they are not interested in learning the truth and dealing with this and other issues as mature adults.

I spent a few years working in intelligence while in the U.S. Navy. I have a solid understanding of how it works. One thing that has always been true about classified information – the only thing you and I are going to get out of it is exactly what the holders of the information are going to give you. The intelligence gatherers of the world will also use the release of certain information to their advantage if they can. This would be done to perhaps “call out” another spy or trace their reaction to it. In this case, we would be using the information to better locate and track movement of known terrorists. The lesson here? Don’t always believe what is being reported – for a number of reasons and the information you are getting, more than likely is incomplete. The intelligence community are masters at manipulating the press to their advantage.
In listening to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, it is easily clear that the U.S. is still engaging in a program to stop terrorism and the reason more information isn’t coming from the CIA, NSA, FBI, Pentagon and others, is to protect their highly classified program. In their words, the security of this country depends on it. Also, they felt a significant blow was handed this program, when the New York Times, printed the story.

The courts have already determined that what the President is doing is very legal. We are at war and because of that, it is his duty to protect us all. This is not something new devised by the President in a grab for power as the Democrats want to make out. President Clinton used the same Presidential powers to search people’s homes without warrants in what was declared as National security and was backed by the courts.

The courts have also already determined that all communications intercepted by the NSA were either coming into or going out to a foreign county. These was not random eavesdroppings. All information came from lists of suspected terrorist individuals or groups.

The big arguement that we hear most often is why didn’t the President utilize FISA? The ruling of FISA allows intelligence agencies such as the NSA, to eavesdrop without a warrant but had 72 hours to seek a warrant while continuing listening. Studies show an overwhelming number of requests were never denied. So why didn’t NSA use this loophole?

We may never know but it was a decision made by President Bush. I feel quite confident that there is a matter of speed and urgency that plays into the process being used to gather information along with the need for secrecy. We already know that it was after the President spoke with key members of Congress to inform them of what was transpiring in the NSA, the program was leaked to the New York Times.

From my past experiences, I would guess that the biggest reason FISA wasn’t used was to ensure the security of the mission. Once the administration consulted with the judicial system to get a ruling on what they were doing, FISA was left out of the loop. For the purpose of maintaining secrets vital to any mission, the fewer people who know about it the better the chances are of it remaining as a viable program.

If there are going to be hearings, I certainly hope the hearings are to determine if America wants to stop this legal process in order to protect the rights of everybody in all cases or continue on and be more secure within our borders from terrorists. Polls clearly show that Americans are more concerned about their security than whether listed terrorists are being followed.

I can also assure you that when and if these hearings take place, if the United States is still engaged in eavesdropping of known terrorists and this program is still affective, no one is going to get many details as to how it works. We probably will get no more than what we have now. In the reverse, if much information is divulged, you can be assured that the program is no longer being used as would be described in hearings.
So put down the hateful feelings toward Bush and get down off your high horses and debate the issue for what it is – a matter of privacy rights. Do you and I still have that right to absolute privacy if we are aiding and abetting the enemy? Do you believe that with the three branches of Government, we can administer a program like this and still protect the privacy of innocent individuals?

Hearings may determine how the Bush administration came to the conclusion that the acts they were to follow were lawful. Once that is completed, we now need to decide if the President should be given that authority. The Legislature makes the laws, the Judicial system upholds them while the Executive branch protects the people and provides for the national defense within the laws of this land.
Let the debate begin – but let’s debate the facts.