Domestic Spying and the New CIA Nominee
As further details of the program became known, it has been learned that the program involves the monitoring of phone calls and emails between foreign nationals and United States citizens with either having suspected links to terrorism. NSA officials have offered that the program is legal in that were a warrant necessary prior to conducting the specific surveillance, as the monitored communications are time sensitive, intelligence could be lost in the time it would take to obtain a warrant. Having to expend time to secure a warrant on a per call basis could potentially allow terrorist activity to occur that could have otherwise been stopped.
The concern over this program has again been brought to the forefront following President Bush’s nomination of Air Force General Michael Hayden to head the Central Intelligence Agency following Porter Goss’ departure. Hayden is a former director of the NSA and was also the primary architect of the NSA’s call and email surveillance program. While critics of the program have questioned the legality of the NSA surveillance program, Hayden, during his Senate confirmation hearing has said that the program authorized by President Bush is legal and is designed to identify and catch terrorist and to fight terrorism, not to spy on ordinary citizens.
Following the revelation of this phone call and email monitoring program there were outcries from civil liberty proponents and others who champion personal freedom without governmental interference calling that the program was illegal and should be ceased immediately. At the forefront of the criticism was the argument that there exists a readily accessible court designed, created and intended to provide the intelligence community with access to warrants for just this type of surveillance. In criticizing the program, the argument has been made that for such surveillance to be legal pursuant to the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution, it is necessary that their be independent judicial review of the probable cause which exist and to have a judge determine if the probable cause is sufficient for the issuing of a warrant. Once this has been established, then the independent judge could issue the warrant. General Hayden has said that even though the surveillance was done without a warrant the probable cause standard was still adhered to when determining to listen to phone calls.
The concern over the monitoring of the phone calls and emails between foreign nationals outside of the country and United States citizens has been magnified following the recent revelation that the NSA, in addition to monitoring certain calls, has been reviewing cell phone records from a number of major wireless carriers. Though perhaps numerous records were examined, the NSA has said the only records that were the subject of interest and ultimately examined were those related to terrorism and terrorist activity. While no phone calls from the list were specifically monitored, concerns were voiced over the NSA having the records at all. In the wake of this, several wireless carriers have said that they have not turned over any of their call records to the NSA.
Previously, the President and the NSA have refused calls to discuss the ongoing surveillance efforts; however, on the eve of the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for General Hayden to the post of CIA Director, the NSA has provided closed doors access to documentation concerning the surveillance program to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
While many people have criticized this NSA activity, many people in the United States have voiced support of the surveillance program. As technology has progressed, the traditional approach to intelligence gathering has changed. In the modern day with computers, wireless communications and the internet, the chances of a spy infiltrating a terrorism cell or exposing a plot is slim – traditional cloak and dagger activity is just not as effective as it once was. The spy ground of today and the future has its foundation in technology and cyberspace. The NSA is an agency few know much about. However it has long been at the forefront of the intelligence community in analyzing data and code breaking. With modern technology, it is not only possible to analyze vast amounts of information very quickly, but the technology allows for trends and patterns to be discerned from these patterns. By using these tools, it is possible to combat changing IP addresses, disposable cell phones and other technological hurdles. The resulting benefit of the analysis of terrorist intelligence and activity is that it is possible with the current technologies to identify patterns and stop dangerous activity before it happens.
The answer to the NSA surveillance dilemma lies in balancing personal liberties and freedoms against the need to protect our nation so personal liberties and freedoms can continue to exist. While there has been no comprehensive documentation on the exact specifics of the NSA surveillance efforts, it appears that in regards to the examination of the wireless phone records, no one listened in on the actual calls. It seems that only the phone numbers have been examined. As well, on the monitoring of the emails and the phone calls between foreign nationals and individuals in the United States, only calls that were between parties that were involved in terrorist activities were targeted. It does not appear that the NSA is listening in on massive and randomly selected phone calls and emails.
While both programs will likely continue, the exact resolution as to how to handle the NSA’s monitoring of the emails and phone calls or even if there will be a resolution, is yet to be seen. As General Hayden proceeds through the Senate confirmation process, he has pledged to renew the CIA’s tradition of risk taking in intelligence gathering. To do this, envelopes will have to be pushed, but this envelope pushing will be to keep our country safe and secure. While there are questions to be answered in regards to how intelligence is gathered, the need for secure borders and the ability of all within the borders of the United States to feel safe and secure will remain of the utmost importance.
