Subscribe to my Feed
« Jackson, Obama and Fox: who owes whom an apology here? | Home | Should “New Yorker” magazine apologize to the Obamas? »
How will the next President conduct terrorism surveillance?
By Lauren | July 11, 2008
Continuing my series on ethical issues facing the next President, let’s discuss the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that were approved by Congress this week. The new law was developed in the wake of revelations that, after 9/11, the Bush Administration eavesdropped on American computer and phone lines for almost six years without first obtaining permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a special court established in 1978 to provide judicial oversight of federal wiretapping. This, by the way, was almost certainly in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects Americans’ right to be free from warrantless searches.
Most of the reporting on the new law has focused on a provision that grants telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush Administration immunity from lawsuits by angry customers who think their privacy was illegally violated. However, the new law also revamps many other aspects of federal surveillance rules, and expands the authority of intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on conversations and e-communications without first obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Critics of the law fear it does too much damage to Americans’ privacy rights, and are already lining up to challenge its constitutionality in court.
My own take is that the new law has tremendous potential to be abused, so if it survives the pending court challenges the next President (who will have ultimate authority over the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and federal intelligence agencies) will need to think carefully about how the new freedoms that the law provides should be exercised. When and under what circumstances would it be ethical to engage in warrantless wiretapping? Should the Administration decide not to engage in warrantless wiretapping even if it has a statutory right to do so? (Getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court really isn’t terribly difficult; the court is available 24/7 and rarely, if ever, denies a warrant application.) Then again, if warrantless wiretapping could prevent another terrorist attack on this country, would it be ethical not to take advantage of the latitude the new statute provides?
Senator Obama voted for the law; Senator McCain wasn’t in the Senate on the day it passed, but has expressed his support for it. Each of them will now need to explain how his Administration will put the new law into effect. Are you comfortable with your candidate’s approach? You decide.
Topics: Presidential Campaign, Social Ethics |
July 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hi Lauren,
I can understand the concerns of privacy advocates and civil liberty groups. The government should not invade the privacy of individuals nor restrict their civil liberties unless their is a very good reason.
However, I can also understand the governments point of view in relation to this issue. Unfortunately, terrorism is a very, very real threat in your country. Government agencies must take all reasonable steps necessary to protect American citizens, and in order for them to do so, it is imperative that they are not hindered by legal constraints.
Intelligence gathering is a necessary activity for identifying potential terrorist threats, and I can can certainly understand why intelligence agencies would sometimes need to monitor telephone conversations without having to wait for a warrant.
The new law should not be reversed. I would say, however, that intelligence agencies should not use the new law for mere ‘fishing expeditions,’ they should only use their new power where they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person or group of people may be a potential terrorist threat.
Cheers
Andrew
December 14th, 2008 at 2:56 am
The British government has said neither the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) nor the Bajrang Dal are terrorist organisations and their members are not banned from entering Britain.