Carah Goldoust Blog Post #6

I found Bergen’s piece on NSA surveillance interesting and well thought out. It is an important question to not only ask but to look into, whether or not the NSA surveillance program is really doing what it promises. I believe that there are two main reasons why it has created such a massive amount of controversy since it has been revealed to the public. The first reason is because it is arguable that it is an infringement on our fourth amendment rights as U.S. citizens. Also, the second reason is that people really do question whether or not this type of program is doing more good than it is doing bad. It is apparent that more people are concerned about their fourth amendment rights than they are seeing the larger concept that this program may help catch terrorists. Therefore, I think it is great that a piece like this exists and that the authors really went into detail with their study. However, even though as this study shows that the program does not really do as much as we think in terms of protecting us, I do believe that it still has a great purpose.

Bergen does make a great point that after 225 cases they studies; they found that it was still traditional methods of investigation that led to “catching” most terrorists. Bergen states, “Traditional investigative methods initiated 60 percent of the cases we identified.” These traditional methods include something as simple as someone providing a tip. While it may be true that not that many cases are not detected with this particular tool. I believe that it is important to not only remember that it is a new and developing method of surveillance. But also it is important to remember that the scope of information that is being gathered may just be too massive to comprehend just yet. Basically, since it is a new tool for intelligence gathering, they are still learning how to “zero in” on information that could actually be of use. Bergen did mention however that recent cases may not have been made public yet, but I do not think the number would be significantly different than what their study displays. Regardless, I believe that this program needs to stay in place as it is just getting developed.
Furthermore, just because this program is not providing that many cases, does not make it inefficient. Bergen mentions that some of the cases it is providing may have to just do with terrorist financing. Even if this is the type of information that is being gathered, this is still very helpful. Any lead that can be gathered as to the activities and whereabouts of terrorists will help our national security overall.
Ultimately I think that while this program is controversial, it does need to stick around. It was put in place for a reason and it should remain. Once it is accepted that this program will stay, I think it is important to see how it is possible for it to narrow down it's targets. This would not only help the American public, but it would also potentially help the intelligence community find what they are looking for in the first place.