US Government Intelligence Gathering
During a speech at the US department of justice, Obama explained “After 9/11, our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information.” The intelligence gathering is fast becoming an important but misunderstood work in this world. This is mainly because there has been some rigidity with respect to changing with the times. The definition of privacy today cannot be altered and sacrificed in the name of national security, but it can also not be sacrificed at the altar of personal privacy. These two have to co-exist given that they are both largely indispensable. Thus, despite the fears and doubts about intelligence gathering techniques today, the government should keep monitoring people’s communication, and ensuring that the citizens are safe. It is for a reason that it has always been a successful part of our history, and it is effective on defending the nation from both internal and external threats and attacks. The US government must monitor communications in order to deter terror threats, boost security and secure the nation’s borders.
Monitoring Communications has been Largely Successful
The US government has been successful with this intelligence gathering system from way back in history. In the Civil War, the Union forces spied on the Confederate Armies and eventually triumphed over them. In the Second World War, the US intercepted Japanese communications and used it to save American troops in Europe. These examples, along with many others, show that intelligence gathering has so far been the most successful method against adversaries. When the government monitors the communications between entities that are considered as threats or are suspected of being involved with threats, they are able to understand what is being planned and can effectively protect the nation from these attacks. Thus, monitoring gives the government an upper hand in any given conflict.
Currently, the greatest threat to national security is terrorism. Over the past few years, a lot of individuals have been arrested in the light of their connection with the terrorist groups. This is mainly because these terrorist groups use individuals who are within the US to execute their attacks, and protecting the borders is not the most effective means of keeping them out. By monitoring communications, the government can ascertain the plans being made and put up countermeasures that will keep the American nation safe.
Information is known to be more powerful than most weapons, and especially today when the human rights are a sensitive subject all over the world, the government cannot afford to act in the absence of absolute proof and unreasonable doubt. For this reason, they may not be able to arrest a suspected terrorist. However, if they can monitor their communications, they will be able to get not only the evidence that they need to arrest the individual but also to prevent the attack by ensuring that the targets are secure.
Using the example of the Second World War, it can be appreciated that if the US forces had not intercepted the communications from the Japanese side, the troops in Europe would have perished. This means that information is known to save lives if it is obtained early enough. To receive information early enough, relying on the conventional sources may not be effective, thus, the need to monitor the suspect’s communications arise. If the US army had for example been waiting to hear about Japan’s war plan from their allies or the press, they may not have been able to be on time to rescue the troops. Therefore, spying on the enemy is more effective way of keeping abreast of the battle and the war in general.
How Effective Is Communication Monitoring In Deterring Threats?
If an American citizen today became an ISIS sympathizer and decided to carry out an attack against the US on behalf or in the honor of the ISIS, the only way the government would be able to find out is to track this individual’s communication and establish connection to the terrorist group. This is mainly because other than the frequent communications between the terrorism suspect and the ISIS, there is no other factor that could link an American citizen with a terror group that is not only based but also mainly operates from the Middle and Far East.
Monitoring communications is not about listening to people’s conversations and reading their mail. It is more about knowing who is communicating with whom and if the connection seems suspicious, then it is checked by the relevant authorities. The idea here is to spot out the individuals in the society who may be compromised with the jihadist ideologies that have been setting them against the American civilization. Initially, private conversations were a focus but lately, there has been more interest in noting the connections that people are making and seeking justifications for them before trying to investigate in details.
The common factor in most terrorist attacks is the communications with the terror groups. This means that the US Government does not even have to establish what a terror suspect is saying before they can accuse them of planning an attack. Consistent communications with known members of a terrorist group is enough to prove that the individual is considerably suspicious. Moreover, this is essentially how the government is able to identify threats, and stop possible attacks within the country without necessarily violating the rights of the suspect.
Criticisms to Communication Monitoring
Monitoring communications involves checking the suspect’s phone and email records in order to understand their communication patterns. The key to this monitoring exercise is often to determine whom they are working with and eventually, what they are working on. Usually, people, who make numerous calls to the Middle East, are the most suspicious ones unless they have legitimate business ventures in the region. This means that the system allows for surveillance on people who may also not be really threats, until they can prove the legitimacy of their Middle Eastern connections. Hence, the major criticism here is that the people’s right to privacy is significantly compromised, and that this particular security measure is against the constitution. There is no justification whatsoever because communication monitoring effectively invades on peoples’ privacy as guaranteed in the constitution.
Turn-Backs
First, the government only looks to monitor the communications of individuals who have established connections with countries that are known to harbor terrorists. This means that they do not single out random civilians and monitor their communications, but rather that one has to be suspicious for one reason or another before the equipment and labor can be committed to the surveillance. This counters the fear that common citizens are no longer able to enjoy their privacy.
A second turn-back is that the government does not always listen to conversations unless they have a special need to do so. Usually, this may be if they are hoping to find out the location of a bomb or a suspect depending on the matter at hand. It can be appreciated here that the main concern is often the connection that the individual is establishing and if these are found normal and justifiable then they will be left alone. The extreme surveillance is only exercised in circumstances within which they are considered deserving and can be explained effectively when the need arises.
The US government works with a strong system of checks and balances such that the Constitution cannot be violated as easily as one can expect. Each of the policies that are followed under the intelligence gathering system are up to the standards set by the Constitution because there are enough protection in place to prevent malicious indulgence. As such, privacy can only be interfered when the necessary authorities have determined beyond reasonable doubt that there is a threat and an imminent attack that can only be stopped by listening in on a private conversation.
Since the September 11 attack, the US citizens have had the expectations that the government will protect them from terrorists at all costs. With the outcomes of the attack still fresh in the nation’s collective memory, it may be difficult to justify exposing more than 100 million individuals to a terrorist attack to protect the privacy of a single individual. This means that while the government cannot sacrifice privacy to build national security, they also cannot sacrifice national security to enforce privacy as a constitutional right. The people have as much the right to be safe and secure within their nation as they have to privacy. It, thus, remains up to the government to find a balance and ensure that both privacy and security are upheld depending on the context and in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.
The US government’s intelligence gathering system is one of the country’s most effective weapons against their adversaries. This is because they gather information that is useful in averting terrorist attacks, and identifying the threats to national security. On one hand, this system may compromise the privacy of the individuals if they have known connections with the suspicious countries but if they are forming ties with terrorist groups, the system will enable the government to identify and mark them as suspicious, thus, monitoring their activities to ensure that they do not attack civilians.
More read on https://essaysworld.net/