As the Obama Regime’s coverup and stonewalling roll on, General Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency, was trotted out to lie to Congress. This time, the story line is that the unconstitutional spying was “disrupting or contributing to the disruption of terrorist attacks”, and he said that this has happened “dozens” of times, but, alas, he says that he can’t discuss those incidents, because “he would rather be criticized by people who think he’s hiding something ‘the jeopardize the security of this country’ ” and if speaks out “Americans will die.”
Respectfully, General, that’s not your call. When Congress asks questions, General, its your job to wipe that smarmy smile off your face and answer the questions put to you by the civilian government.
But it hasn’t taken long for the civil liberties bar to unpack the nuances of his smug, self-righteous and utterly unhelpful performance before the Congress. What does it mean to “contribute to the disruption of terrorist attacks?” And aren’t we back to the Carmen Ortiz Disneyworld of terrorism and the Tarek Mehanna problem? And when does a “terrorist attack” begin? So we can unpack the examples: Homeland Security sets someone up, provides the explosives and then arrests the person. Is that a terrorist attack, and is disruption of an attack which could never succeed the same as disrupting a terrorist attack? If someone is arrested and sent to Gitmo for having the audacity to think a pro Jihadii thought, has that disrupted terrorism, or has it locked up the usual suspects? And how did the Boston Marathon bombing get through the net? That wasn’t disrupted. The serious suggestion here is that the NSA is not disrupting serious terrorist attacks, but some rather ambiguous concept of what a terrorist attack is. Alas, the General testified, the definition of terrorist, terrorism, disrupt and contributes are all classified in the context of this program, so the American people are just going to have to take the good word of the Regime that this is helpful.
Well, frankly, General, bullshit. One example. Give us one example. I don’t believe our national security would be harmed by one example of disruption of a terrorist attack. name. date. target. level of imminent threat. how the program disrupted the threat. the current location of the terrorist. the bomb. something. The Regime is asking us to believe that we are trading liberty for security. In that kind of exchange, the very least this Regime can do is give us one example so we can understand the bargain we are being asked to strike. Otherwise, we’re being asked to buy a car, locked in a garage, that we can’t see, based on the good word of the smarmy used car salesman. Not good enough. No way close to not good enough. Because this administration has no credibility, no integrity, no honesty, no openness. We’re the guys with the thumb screws. Trust us.