ACLU v. NSA

1. I believe that the Executive Branch should not have the power to spy on Americans without a court warrant because it is in violation to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution and also a violation to the separation of powers.
2. After September 11, 2001 President Bush authorized surveillance on the United States to receive messages and phone calls going to foreign countries. He made the argument that it was constitutional due to national security. In 2005 the nation found out about this and later in 2006 ACLU challenged this in a district court and won, but in 2007 it was overturned. ACLU challenged the decision to the Supreme Court in 2008 which was decided that the NSA had even more power than before.
3. Violation of the 4th amendment which states that there is no unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, checks and balances which would limit the power to the executive branch, violation of the communications act; you can't intercept or read messages in the United States, also a violation to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which states the procedures to get judicial permission to have electronic surveillance on people involved in suspected terrorism.
4. Some possible opposing arguments would include: the Patriot Act which allows certain actions without judicial authorization, the goal is to protect national security, and it isn't UNREASONABLE search and seizure.
5 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ
this video provides arguments in support of the ACLU. It shows some of the arguments from the court of appeals in Cincinnati.

ACLU v. NSA Debate Claire Roos

1.) The Executive Branch should not be able to spy on Americans without a court warrant in order to try to 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.

2.) Background on ACLU v. NSA:

Many prestigious journalists who often communicate with people over seas (often in the Middle East) to obtain accurate news sources have reason to believe that the United States government is intercepting these communications due to the location and reason of calls. In 2001, the NSA launched the program, ratified by George Bush, that allows for the interception of international communications without any kind of warrant. In 2006, this case was taken to court and the district court ruled that the NSA program allowing spying was unconstitutional. However, this ruling was overturned in 2007 because the plaintiffs could not be certain if they were actually wiretapped. The ACLU then requested the Supreme Court to review the ruling, but declined to do it in 2008.

3.) Reasons:

• The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free speech, which is being violated if the government can arrest someone for terrorist activity based on communications without court approval.
• The implied right to privacy is being violated because the government is listening and reading people's private, not public conversations and using them to prosecute people.
• The fourth amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. Searches and seizures require a warrant, which in the NSA program, is not required to wiretap.
• This is a violation of the separation of powers because the president ignored congress's rulings/regulations against unwarranted spying. the Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) from 1978 both issue strict regulations and limitations of surveillance, which are being violated by the NSA.

4.) Counter Arguments

• The president's power as commander in chief gives him the power to take actions necessary to insure the safety of the United States during a war (the war on terror).
• If the program was made in accordance with the rules and regulations listed in FISA, then the wiretapping program is legal.

5.) Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ

This video explains the reasons why the NSA program is unconstitutional. It explains how FISA made it illegal for the executive branch to make searches and seizures and eavesdrop without a warrant, however, Bush allowed the NSA to violate this law. Also, the reporters in question were simply trying to do their job and promote democracy, but now they are unable to do so.

1) 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

ACLU v. NSA

1. The NSA should not have the ability to monitor such messages without a warrant. Anything in this type of area is protected by the 4th amendment. 2. 3. The 4th amendment protects from an unreasonable search. This, in tandem with the ruling in Katz v. United States, protects from an unreasonable search through technology.

ACLU v. NSA

No, the Executive Branch should not be able to listen to person conversations without a warrant or any type of notification because..... In 2006 the count ruled in favor of ACLU, stating that Bush (President) could not wiretap without court issued warrant. By the NSA doing so they are violating the peoples First and Fourth Amendments along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Framers never wanted the President to have such uncontrollable powers, Bush was clearing disregarding the enumerated powers given to him by the Bill of Rights. The opposing side could argue that, anyone could be the next terrorist. Although that may be true, listening to conversations and them knowing that NSA is listening it going to make them not want to say the things they would in private. That is no help to anyone and it makes the ones that really are harmless feel uncomfortable in the "comfort" in the own home. They could also argue that, things said that are regarding terrorism will be ignored. Even though, NSA is disregarding things like that doesn't mean they need to know. With the NSA wiretapping and ease dropping they could find out information that they really do not need to know.

Big Debate - Jenny Wang

Opinion: The power of the government's spy on individuals is constitutional because when the situation involves national security, the safety of the nation must be put first before the rights of individuals.

Background Information: In 2005, ACLU sued NSA for spying/wiretapping on the ACLU. A district court in Michigan ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, however circuit courts and other appellant courts declined to hear the case since not enough evidence is present to prove that the ACLU was being spied. The Supreme Court also declined to hear the case in 2008. New turn of events in NSA's policy, which gave more power to listen to international calls, prompted the ACLU to sue NSA again. (Amnesty v. Blair)

Arguments: In Schenck v US, the rights of Schenck was restricted because of a time of war. The government's priorities were in protecting the rights of the citizens, and during war time, Schenck's opposition to the draft could have threatened the security of the nation. In a similar sense, the protection of the US from foreign threat during wartime is necessary, and the most effective method is the wiretapping of individuals for the sake of national security. As promised by the NSA, if evidence of other crimes are obtained, they will not be used against the individuals, upholding Mapp v Ohio and a Constitutional right. So the NSA does not take away all of the rights of a citizen in a criminal trial.

Opposing views: The actions of NSA are violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the actions of NSA also give the president/executive power excess powers. The Constitution also states that the President has this authority by his executive power from Article II, Section 1. And if he needed any additional authority, the Authorization for Use of Military Force gives him the right to use intelligence-gathering methods.

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ

ACLU attorney Ann Beeson argues their case against the NSA's right to wiretapping.

Against Wire Tapping

To obtain information, a warrant is necessary. If there is unwarranted search and seizure, then there's a violation of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution.

In order to use information in court, there must be a warrant, which comes from suspicion.

Since the government doesn't even know what they're looking for, they can't obtain a warrant and they cannot sift through people's information.

This increased amount of government power could lead to an abuse of power in the future as well, and should be prevented at all costs.