So, the White House announces the emergence of a “significant” terrorist threat; the State Department issues a worldwide travel alert and shuts down 21 diplomatic missions; the Pentagon places U.S. forces throughout the Middle East on heightened alert, and the president of the United States ... books a gig on “Tonight.”

The decision to chat up Jay Leno seemed a bit incongruous at first, but on second thought, it wasn’t a bad idea at all. The late-night talk show gave the president a chance to explain how Washington tracks down terrorists. And the American people certainly could use a simple, clear explanation of what their government is up to.

Edward Snowden sowed a lot of confusion about this when he started blabbing about what he’d snatched from the super-secretive National Security Agency. Sifting through the hype surrounding all the revelations was more challenging than untangling all the sub-plots and characters in the “Game of Thrones.”

Recently, another disclosure of secrets added to the controversy. Press reports, citing U.S. officials, revealed that the information that prompted the widespread embassy closings came from eavesdropping on a conference call among al-Qaida’s top brass.

This intercept should not be confused with the programs singled out by Snowden. One of those programs had nothing to do with surveillance at all. It was authorized under Section 215 of The Patriot Act, allowing the U.S. government to request “business records” for counterterrorism investigations. This program is supervised by a judge, and the records involved are merely phone logs used for billing. They show who called whom, when, and for how long. This particular program does not allow anyone to listen to anybody’s phone call.

A second program Snowden snitched on relates to gathering foreign intelligence. Governed by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, this program (often called “PRISM”) can only be used against non-U.S. citizens ... like those participating in the al-Qaida conference call.

According to the statements given to the press, however, PRISM wasn’t used to listen in on that call. Apparently that intelligence came via a different source. This latest revelation, therefore, tells us very little about what to think about the NSA programs.

No matter how one feels about l’affaire Snowden, no one argues that Washington doesn’t have a legitimate need to collect intelligence on America’s enemies. Good foreign intelligence is obviously invaluable in combating transnational terrorism.

Indeed, rather than “pull a Snowden” and talk up their covert conference-call coup, the anonymous officials who bragged about it would have done better to keep that little secret, well ... secret. It’s worrisome to find government officials “leaking” or “sharing” with journalists information on the sources and methods used to track terrorists. Such revelations may compromise the effectiveness of these procedures.

On the other hand, such disclosures don’t get at the main issue that worries so many Americans: Is our government running these programs in accordance with the law? Learning that one intelligence program has worked does little to allay fears that others may have gone off the rails.

Intelligence gathering, by its very nature, must be done behind closed doors. And the way the people can be assured that these operations are being conducted lawfully and appropriately is via responsible oversight from Congress. Members of Congress wrote the laws under which these programs operate. They are responsible for assuring that the administration is conducting those programs as authorized.

The circus surrounding Snowden’s secret-sharing was long on histrionics, but void of any proof that the National Security Agency had actually done anything illegal.

That said, there are issues worth worrying about. Are these programs effective at combating terrorism? Is our government appropriately safeguarding all the personal information it collects, or is it just putting it all in one convenient place where the Chinese ― or hackers like Anonymous ― might one day visit?

The rules of spying are pretty simple: 1) Get good information on the bad guys, while respecting the liberties and privacy of our citizens, and 2) undertake these operations in a responsible, efficacious manner.

But the simple in spying is difficult. Getting it right takes a Congress that is on the ball.

By James Jay Carafano

James Jay Carafano is vice president of foreign affairs and defense studies at The Heritage Foundation. ― Ed.

(The Heritage Foundation)

(The Heritage Foundation/MCT Information Services)