Secret Agent Man

For the purpose of this assignment and to lay down the foundation for the position I am going to take. I feel it is appropriate to share some personal information in regards to my background. I served in the UnitedStates Marine Corps from 1976 until 1984. During part of that time frame I was involved with the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity. Simply put, I worked with military contractors: Litton, General Dynamics, Sierra Research, 4C’s, Sperry Univac and a handful of others. They were the high tech leaders of that era and primary leaders in designing the tactical software and hardware to be used in a wartime situation.  To complete this objective I was trained, evaluated, investigated and finally cleared for a high level security clearance.  I had knowledge of and pertaining to information highly valuable to all and any of the enemies of my country.  I was not at liberty to discuss any of these projects with anybody. Remember the time frame, 1978 was just a few years after the ending of the Vietnam conflict.  The spread of communism, at this time, was a national fear.  The general public was still highly upset over Vietnam. North Korea was just as much of a pain in the ass as it is today. Russia was heavily active in Indonesia and using such countries as Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to test and evaluate their future military capabilities at the expense of the population of those third world countries.  The above mentioned US companies did not want attention brought to the American public’s eyes of their involvement with our military. I was not permitted to wear my uniform, make any reference of my military service or address my officers in any military fashion while I was on a project or on their corporate campuses.  I was even allowed and encouraged to wear my hair longer and completely out of Marine Corps regulations. It was a wild time.

Now, let us get on to the editorial before this becomes a paper of its own.  “Secret programs keep us safe: Opposing view.” An editorial by Ron Sievert, published in USA Today, August 1, 2013. Sievert’s editorial makes reference to the government’s National Security Agency and several programs that take place without the general knowledge of the American public. That is until Edward Snowden leaked classified information to the general public.  Sievert seems to be addressing those of the public who desire to end or have transparency in these programs and those who praise Snowden for his public disclosure. The editorial also mentions Manning in name, I choose to stay with the editorials main objective.

Sievert earns my support and establishes his credibility within his editorial by opening with a quote from George Washington.  If you can’t trust George who can you trust?  Sievert points out that 140 years later in 1936, our Supreme Court uses this very same quote to establish that the executive branch must maintain "confidential sources of information,” especially in time of military conflict. Sievert credibility increases throughout the editorial.

Sievert feels that many of the public have forgotten that we are in a current conflict. He paraphrases the current leaders of the congressional intelligence committee.

“First, we have a determined enemy still out to attack the U.S. And second, the confidential programs sanctioned by Congress and approved as constitutional by the courts have worked.”

I want to elaborate on this statement.

What they are saying is there are people, (determined enemy) out there that want to duplicate 9/11, (attack the U.S.).  Should a reminder be needed, please carefully review the following article:  9/11 by the Numbers published in the New York and updated in September 2012.

They go on to say that these confidential programs sanctioned by Congress (we elected, we voted for, representatives) and approved as constitutional by the courts (our US Constitution and our Judicial system of which we do have a say in. If we choose) have worked.

Sievert reinforces the “have worked” with this statement. “The director of the National Security Agency has testified that about 50 attacks were prevented by the disclosed NSA surveillance programs, and a program known as XKeyscore, according to a new Snowden leak, assisted in the capture of 300 terrorists by 2008.”  This statement certainly establishes Sievert's argument, and in my mind, justifies the need of such programs and carries all the logic I need to endorse this editorial.

In wrapping this up because I have a timed Aristotle quiz due on Blackboard tonight I want to say the following.  My military background gives me knowledge of what secrecy means to the protection of my country.  In my opinion Edward Snowden committed treason to my country and should face charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Sievert’s editorial is right on. We do need to allow certain programs to run without transparency to the general public and to our enemies both foreign and domestic. 

2016 Presidential Campaign

Part of the assignment was to tell your readers why you think the article is worth reading. That made this assignment a real challenge for me.  In the "suggested source," many source's are all telling the same story. If I am going to endorse a story than I need to find a story that I believe in, or at least, one that peaks my interest. Many of the topics are just a reminder that there is a flaw in our government.  This constant bickering between the parties and this chess game they seem to be playing with our lives and with our futures is appalling to me. And here's the real kicker, we are still in 2013 half way through President Obama's second of a four year term. The battle lines are already being drawn for the 2016 Presidential election.

In this article that I discovered in Time they are actually lining up the possible candidates for our 2016 election.  I find this amazing!  When you read this article you will be seeing governors that we are familiar with and of course a few that we would have no reason to know of.  There is a House Representative, a Senator and Hillary Clinton, who hasn't even announced her candidacy.  You will have to click on each prospective candidate to read a little of their campaign platform or what might make them a good candidate per their supporters. This is exactly where I think we as voters need to get involved.  We have an midterm election coming up in November 2014.  We need to start now in placing the candidates we truly believe can do the job for the seats that will be filled in this election. These are the seeds that we need to plant today, knowing that they will be running for higher offices in the future. Of the candidates that are profiled in the upcoming 2016 Primary election, I am not pleased with the selection. Of the ones I do know, they are not doing that well of a job in their current seats. How and why are they candidates for a higher position.