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.
No comments:
Post a Comment