Spying On Our Own
Here is a paper I wrote recently for one of my classes (For a copy of the article used, click on this posts title). I have always had a problem with government stepping beyond it's boundaries and trying to control peoples lives. I may not agree with the philosophies of those who are currently under scrutiny; but a couple of changed words and a different semantic could easily place me and my beliefs directly under that same spotlight someday. Kinda make you think...
Spying on Our Own
What would you do if you came home one day to find a stranger in your house rummaging through your belongings? How would your response change if that stranger was a police officer and his stated reason for being there was to look for incriminating evidence? If you are like most Americans, you would invoke your Fourth Amendment right and ask to see a search warrant. If none was produced, I imagine you would demand the person leave; and in this day and age turn around and sue him.
Next to the right to free speech the Fourth Amendment is probably the most cherished and protected of American civil liberties. This amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Yet in this post-9/11 environment it seems that the federal government has no qualms about ignoring this amendment in order to procure suspected terrorists within this country.
Recently, U.S. News & World Report ran an article regarding the currently more than twenty legal challenges to warrentless spying stating: “President Bush’s post-9/11 decision to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens without court-approved warrants has certainly created a political firestorm.” One such case is that of Suliman al-Buthe. Six years ago al-Buthe failed to report the 150,000 dollars in donations he was taking back to Saudi Arabia for a charity of which he was co-director to U.S. Customs official. Two years ago federal agents froze al-Buthe’s charity assets on charges of alleged ties to Osama bin-Laden and indicted him on taking money illegally from the country. All this was brought about due to an illegal wiretap between al-Buthe and his American attorneys. Meanwhile, the White House maintains that the president is legally allowed to order this type of spying when acting as commander in chief during a wartime situation.
However true this may be, the whole situation is vaguely reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984 where Big Brother (a.k.a. the government) uses the excuse of martial law to surveil its citizens at all times whereby effectively removing free speech and privacy. What prevents the NSA from taking the liberties granted it in this war on terrorism and turning it into a witch hunt to remove any dissidents or threats to their power? By removing the courts from the process, the checks and balances built into our government have been circumvented.
From a legal standpoint, “The governments is vulnerable here,” says Syracuse University law Professor William Banks, “in that no judge has determined that this program was lawful, and we don’t know its full scope”. That is the reason these twenty or so hearings hold such a high profile. An adverse ruling for the government would, as they see it, severely hamper its efforts to unearth terrorists currently residing in the U.S. by requiring “unnecessary” delays while waiting for a warrant. Conversely, an adverse ruling for the plaintiffs would leave the government unimpeded to spy on anyone they wished based merely on suspicion and without proof. Personally I would rather have the government’s hands tied somewhat and trust in the integrity of the American majority to do the right thing when they see something suspicious than run the risk of losing, even partially, the freedoms and rights I enjoy as an American citizen. Clearly some sort of compromise must be reached. Until that time comes, this issue will remain volatile at best.
Spying on Our Own
What would you do if you came home one day to find a stranger in your house rummaging through your belongings? How would your response change if that stranger was a police officer and his stated reason for being there was to look for incriminating evidence? If you are like most Americans, you would invoke your Fourth Amendment right and ask to see a search warrant. If none was produced, I imagine you would demand the person leave; and in this day and age turn around and sue him.
Next to the right to free speech the Fourth Amendment is probably the most cherished and protected of American civil liberties. This amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Yet in this post-9/11 environment it seems that the federal government has no qualms about ignoring this amendment in order to procure suspected terrorists within this country.
Recently, U.S. News & World Report ran an article regarding the currently more than twenty legal challenges to warrentless spying stating: “President Bush’s post-9/11 decision to allow the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens without court-approved warrants has certainly created a political firestorm.” One such case is that of Suliman al-Buthe. Six years ago al-Buthe failed to report the 150,000 dollars in donations he was taking back to Saudi Arabia for a charity of which he was co-director to U.S. Customs official. Two years ago federal agents froze al-Buthe’s charity assets on charges of alleged ties to Osama bin-Laden and indicted him on taking money illegally from the country. All this was brought about due to an illegal wiretap between al-Buthe and his American attorneys. Meanwhile, the White House maintains that the president is legally allowed to order this type of spying when acting as commander in chief during a wartime situation.
However true this may be, the whole situation is vaguely reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984 where Big Brother (a.k.a. the government) uses the excuse of martial law to surveil its citizens at all times whereby effectively removing free speech and privacy. What prevents the NSA from taking the liberties granted it in this war on terrorism and turning it into a witch hunt to remove any dissidents or threats to their power? By removing the courts from the process, the checks and balances built into our government have been circumvented.
From a legal standpoint, “The governments is vulnerable here,” says Syracuse University law Professor William Banks, “in that no judge has determined that this program was lawful, and we don’t know its full scope”. That is the reason these twenty or so hearings hold such a high profile. An adverse ruling for the government would, as they see it, severely hamper its efforts to unearth terrorists currently residing in the U.S. by requiring “unnecessary” delays while waiting for a warrant. Conversely, an adverse ruling for the plaintiffs would leave the government unimpeded to spy on anyone they wished based merely on suspicion and without proof. Personally I would rather have the government’s hands tied somewhat and trust in the integrity of the American majority to do the right thing when they see something suspicious than run the risk of losing, even partially, the freedoms and rights I enjoy as an American citizen. Clearly some sort of compromise must be reached. Until that time comes, this issue will remain volatile at best.
posted by druid_of_christ | 14:35
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home