These days when I watch the news or read an online newspaper I cant help but be bombarded by stories which continually rest on the debate between a person's privacy and right to habeas corpus and the debate by Executive officials of the necessity of wire tapping and other warrantless search programs of international calls in the name of National Security.
The Privacy Argument
Proponents of the Privacy argument are basically disputing continued warrantless wire tapping will interfere with their civil liberties and constitutional rights as the government screens calls or e-mails for "Terrorist Communication". Such warrantless wire tapping, advocates argue that this course of action to apprehend "suspected terrorists" without habeas corpus (the right to petition to go to the court to determine if a prisoner is being lawfully imprisoned), and then jeopardize the liberties of innocent citizens who can potentially by the government for unlawful monitoring. (1)
The National Security Argument
Proponents for the National Security Argument essentially declare that any means necessary to apprehend terrorists or enemies of the state is justified even if apprehension is not within the confines of legality under the Constitution and under United States law. In other words, a warrant is not necessary to search and capture "alleged terrorists" and "alleged terrorists" may have the writ of habeas corpus suspended and other legal rights which are the Standard Operating Procedure in the judicial system when trying criminals.
New Powers of Surveillance
Recent approval by Congress to expand surveillance powers on international calls through warrantless wire tapping now has the potential, due to vague language in the legislation which could offer even greater powers of surveillance. According to David Kris former Senior Justice Department lawyer during the Clinton and Bush administrations, 'This may give the administration even more authority than people thought,' which could include the "collection of business records, physical searches and so-called “trap and trace” operations, analyzing specific calling patterns." (2)
In other words, this new legislation could, put more Americans at risk of being watched with need for tangible reasons why they are being watched.
My Perspective: Security through Governmental Accountability
In my humble opinion the new legislation gives far too much leeway for the government to intrude into the lives of American citizens. It seems that this legislation allows the government to more easily access records and the ability to watch American citizens with little or no reasons. Before most of the controversy was about international calls where non-American are watched now it seems Americans are able to be targetted with little accountabilty. This is where I draw the line in the sand between Just and Un-Just surveillance. When the Government has a lack of accountability for its actions it loses its need to obey the law and respect the rights of American citizens and non-citizens.
Consider the great argument at the founding of our Nation between the Federalists and the AntiFederalists. The AntiFederalists demanded that a Bill of Rights be produced to ensure the protection of citizens rights and civil liberties from the power central government. (3)
If we do not protect our rights as citizens of the United States what point is there in fighting terrorists who oppose our life styles, freedom, and culture? This is why we must hold the government accountable for their actions even when national security is at stake. Let us not forget that the most important national security is the security of our own liberties we are fighting to protect in the first place and thus must keep our government in check.
Continuing the Privacy Vs. National Security Debate...
Where do you fall in the debate? Must we compromise our rights to maintain our National Security? Where do you feel the line should be drawn where national security goes too far so as to infringe on our privacy and civil liberties?
(1) http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/washington/19fisa.html?pagewanted=1&hp
(3) http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/ConstThoughtAntifederalists.pdf
I think that the Executive Branch must adhere to the laws of the United States. I think that they have to have sufficient reason for suspect and then get a warrant. As for tracing international calls, I'm torn.
I think if they absolutely need to disregard our privacy they should do it completely or have a sufficient reason to suspect someone. Dont tap every middle eastern persons phone just as a stereotype.