Aaron Tisack- ACLU

1. I agree with the ACLU in this debate because this constant spying on individuals by the government is protected under the 4th amendment in tandem with katz v. US.

2. The NSA has been wiretapping anyone supposedly related to any terrorist activities. This is because of the 9/11 attacks and the madness that ensued after that. The Patriot Act has given the NSA the power to do almost whatever they want. The ACLU is calling the NSA on this and is attempting to get the Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional and to stop the NSA from such constant spying.

3. The 4th amendment stops the government from unreasonable search and seizure. Despite the threat of terrorism, this does not allow the government to spy on anyone they damn well please. Also, katz v. US establishes that a phone call is just as private as a conversation meaning that it is protected by the 4th amendment.

4. 1. Protecting from terrorism is reason enough to ignore the 4th amendment.

2. Many drastic measure must be taken to protect from the threat of terrorism.

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVPRxtyRfLc

Big Debate

NSA does have the right to do warrantless wiretapping because it is done so with the nation's best interest in mind.

The National Security Agency uses wiretapping to stop the war on terror. No information found about any individual may be used against them unless they are considered a threat to national security. Even then, the information found only lead to further investigations.

Some will argue that this violates the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable search and seizure. However, NSA looks only at people who are suspected to be related to Al Qaeda. This means that there is probable cause to wiretap these individuals, which makes it constitutional.

Big Debate: ACLU v. NSA

ACLU v. NSA
(individual rights v. national security)

My stance on debate:
The Executive Branch does not have the authority/power to spy on Americans without a court warrant in order to stop the war on terror because it is unreasonable search and seizure to the American people, along with violation of privacy.

Background:
After 9/11 fear of terrorism rose and the Bush administration took action by implementing a National Security Agency that wire tapped in to phone calls and email. This was discovered in 2005 and in the following year the ALCU defeated the Bush administration's spying program (NSA) yet the next year, their decision was overturned by the 6th Circuit.

Evidence:
Violation of 4th Amendment (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.) Violation of privacy and unreasonable search.

Counterpoints:
The President has the authority to protect the nation in order to do so he can (by implied powers) tap into conversations. Patriot Act allows agency's to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records in order to regulate the war on terror.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ Ann Beeson argues on the ACLU side about Congress's need to stop tapping into Americans. She believes that the President is not above the law, ordinary Americans should not be tapped, and Americans need reassurance that they can do their jobs (lawyers, etc.).

1) The Executive Branch does not have the authority/power to spy on Americans without a warrant in order to stop the war on terror because it is unreasonable search and seizure to the American people along with a violation of privacy. is a violation of privacy as well as being prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States because this would result primarily in a violation of the right to privacy and right to no unreasonable searches or seizures. Your stance on the topic of debate and a 1-sentence summary explanation 2) A short history and background information surrounding the case 3) List of evidence and research supporting your claim, using a legitimate line of reasoning (no emotions) 4) Two (2) possible points of evidence the opposing side could use against you 5) A Video that either summarizes or takes a stance on the topic of debate and a short description / explanation of the purpose of this video

1. The Executive branch does not have the power to spy on citizens without a warrant in order to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States because it directly violates the right to privacy and protection of no search or seizure without a warrant that is protected by the 4th amendment.
2. In 2005, it was publicly announced that President Bush had used wire tapping and spying techniques in order to protect the country from possible terrorist attacks. These spying techniques were preformed without a warrant and violated the U.S. Constitution. President Bush argued that he executed his actions in order to protect the country, and therefore had the authority not to issue a warrant.
3. Evidence:

• The first amendment protects the right to free speech and expression. Citizens have the right and protection to express whatever they wish, and have the reassurance that they will not be in legal trouble.
• The fourth amendment protects against the right to unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. A search against an innocent citizen could be seen as unreasonable.
• This is a violation of the separation of powers. Congress asked the President to restrain from the wire-tapping, and the President refused this request.
  

ACLU v. NSA

1) I believe the NSA has the right to wire tap because they aren't using the information they find for any other purpose but to end the war on terror and they have a compelling governmental interest.

2) After the terrorist attack of 9/11, president Bush installed a program through the NSA that let the NSA tap into phone lines, emails, text messages, ect, without a search warrant in order to find possible links to terrorists to prevent another terrorists attack.

3)

• The wire tapping represents a vital effort by the President to ensure that we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on America.

• President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people.
• The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to
  carry out that solemn duty.
• Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on Septembcr 18, 2001 -- After 9/11, Congress' first move was to authorize the president to
  
• In its first legislative response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Congress authorized the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” of September 11th in order to prevent “any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
• In order to intercept there must be a “a reasonable basis to
  conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.

4)

• NSA does not have the power under the 4th amendment, which requires a search warrant.
• "slippery slope" - If you give the president the power to do this you ultimately give him the power to do whatever he wants.

5) -- couldn't find one that didn't require youtube...

Matt Sanfield- ACLU vs NSA

Opinion: In my personal opinion, it is unconstitutional for the United States Executive Branch to have the authority to spy on the American public without a warrant. This is because it violates the safeguard granted to the United States' citizens in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as seen in the basic right stated in the 4th amendment.

Background Information: The terrorist attack of 9/11 prompted the initiation to propose a new type of national security measure: wire tapping. Allowing wire tapping was passed following 9/11 through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which intended to intercept international phone calls and internet communications overseas where at least one party involved in the conversation was not of United States origin. From this point, the Patriot Act was passed, which allowed the United States' Government to hack into interpersonal conversations to prevent terrorism and protect the safety of the Nation. Furthermore, the United States was informed that the National Security Agency had permission from the President to intercept phone calls and internet communications within the United States, without a warrant for the sake of National Security. Like many, the ACLU found this hard to believe and in violation of the American public's basic rights. Members of the ACLU had relationships with people in the middle east, and frequently communicated with them. These people were worried that their private conversations were being read by the NSA. Thus, the ACLU took the NSA (National Security Agency) to court regarding the constitutionality of allowing the NSA to intercept the American public's communications. In a 2006 district court ruling, the NSA program was found to be in violation of the 1st and 4th amendments, along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. However in 2007, the case was dismissed in a Court of Appeals on the basis that plaintiffs in the case had no evidence to sue based on their inability to prove that they had been wiretapped by the NSA. This ruling further protected the NSA from judicial punishment and resolved nothing. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2008, however the case was declined but is predicted to be admitted upon resubmission. Later that same year, the FISA Amendments Act was passed, allowing the NSA to have more power to spy on American citizens. The act was challenged by the ACLU in the case "Amnesty v Blair".

Supporting Evidence: Allowing the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant is unconstitutional.
-It violates the 4th amendment- "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." Violating the aspect of being secure in their own home on the phone. Violates the aspect that a warrant is required for search or seizure and only obtained with reasonable evidence requiring it.
-It violates the Katz v US (1967) ruling- Katz called someone in a phone booth regarding an illegal gambling activity but the FBI was secretly listening in on him. The FBI used that recorded information to convict him, but he appealed the ruling. The court ruled: "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary). It also established the reasonable suspicion test.
- Violated the reasonable suspicion (which was a test to determine if government activity constitutes a search). It was test on the basis of 2 things- 1. an individual has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy. 2. is the expectation of privacy reasonable? The expectation of privacy was violated. Places intertwined with expectation of privacy: home (violated), phone booth, jails, and public restrooms. In these places you're granted a right to privacy (dont have to worry about Government
interference).
-A district court found the act to be unconstitutional.

Counter- Arguments:
-It's for the purpose of National Security and thus legal.
-The NSA only uses it to track down terrorists and because of this narrow view, it can't be misused. For example, if a murderer confessing to a murder was recorder, that information couldn't be used in trial because it wasn't related to preventing the war on terrorism.
-Patriot Act grants the US Government the authority to spy on American citizens.
-Schneck v US- Schneck had his rights violated in a time of war to protect National Security.


Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ
A video justifying the unconstitutionality of the NSA's power to intercept all interpersonal communications within the US.