Why Expanded Government Spying Doesn’t Mean Better Security Against Terrorism
What is most important to understand about the revelations of massive message interception by the U.S. government is this: in counterterrorist terms, it is a farce.
There is a fallacy behind the current intelligence strategy of the United States, behind this collection of up to three billion phone calls a day, of emails, and even of credit card expenditures, not to mention the government spying on the mass media. It is this:
The more quantity of intelligence, the better it is for preventing terrorism.
In the real, practical world this is untrue, though it might seem counterintuitive. You don't need -- to put it in an exaggerated way -- an atomic bomb against a flea. Basically the NSA, as one of my readers suggested, is the digital equivalent of the TSA strip-searching an 80 year-old Minnesota grandmothers rather than profiling and focusing on the likely terrorists.
Isn't it absurd that the United States -- which can't finish a simple border fence to keep out potential terrorists; can't stop a would-be terrorist in the U.S. Army who gives a PowerPoint presentation on why he is about to shoot people (Major Nidal Hasan); can't follow up on Russian intelligence warnings about Chechen terrorist contacts (the Boston bombing); or a dozen similar incidents -- must now collect every telephone call in the country?
Isn't it absurd that under this system, a photo-shop clerk has to stop an attack on Fort Dix by overcoming his fear of appearing "racist" to report a cell of terrorists?
That it was left to brave passengers to jump a would-be "underpants bomber" from Nigeria, because his own father's warning that he was a terrorist was insufficient?
Isn't it absurd that terrorists and terrorist supporters visit the White House, hang out with the FBI, and advise the U.S. government on counter-terrorist policy, even while -- as CAIR does -- advising Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement? And that they are admiringly quoted in the media?
Meanwhile, a documented, detailed revelation of this behavior in MERIA Journal by Patrick Poole -- "Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government's Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy" -- a report which rationally should bring down the government, does not get covered by a single mass media outlet?
Imagine this scene:
"Sir, we have a telephone call about a potential terrorist attack!"
"Not now, Smithers, I'm giving a tour of our facility to some supporters of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood."
How about the time when the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem had a (previously jailed) Hamas agent working in their motor pool with direct access to the vehicles and itineraries of all visiting U.S. dignitaries and senior officials?
Article printed from Rubin Reports: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2013/6/10/why-expanded-government-spying-doesnt-mean-better-security-against-terrorism