The National Security Agency (NSA) has recently been discovered to have listened to many non-terrorist affiliated Americans’ conversations in the “Green Zone” of Iraq. An act passed by the Bush administration, the Protect America Act (PAA) of 2007 sought to protect the security of American citizens by running a “program limited to those who are known al-Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates,” according to President Bush (2). However, what began as a project for national security has turned into a mass invasion of privacy, according to former workers for the NSA. Clearly, the NSA has been monitoring speakers’ rights too closely along a private medium that they have no warrant to search. The PAA demonstrates a level of high neoliberal protection of what the public is exposed to in an effort to “protect” them; but in reality, it is what could lead to further suppression of their free-speech rights.
The NSA was created by executive order from President Bush shortly after the 9/11 attacks to monitor the content of certain phone calls of al-Qaeda suspects or affiliates, even if the receiver is in the US (4). While created to preserve national security, many people, including former employees of the NSA, have argued that the scope of the program is too broad, thus, infringing upon the rights of non-terrorist affiliated Americans. Adrienne Kinne, an Army Reserves Arab linguist, previously worked for NSA and claims that the content of the calls was “personal, private things with Americans who were not in any way, shape, or form associated with anything to do with terrorism.” Kinne continued that that they were “personal calls that no one else should have been listening to.” (2).
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), enacted by Congress in 1978, involved surveillance of foreign intelligence information, however, placed limits upon when such surveillance could be used. The act states that "’Foreign intelligence information’ is defined as information necessary to protect the U.S. or its allies against actual or potential attack from a foreign power, sabotage, or international terrorism.” (4). FISA defines a “foreign power” as “a foreign government or any faction(s) of a foreign government not substantially composed of US persons, or any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government.” (4). However, FISA says that the government must obtain a warrant up to 72 hours prior to the surveillance, provided that there is a “probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” (4). The Bush administration extended the surveillance power of the government in 2007 by enacting the PAA, thus eliminating the requirement of obtaining a warrant before beginning surveillance (4). Government officials have relied on the defense of “minimization”; thus saying that citizens’ rights will be affected minimally by the surveillance. However, according to an argument presented by the Center for Democracy and Technology, “the “minimization” rules that would be applicable to the PAA permits the government to retain, analyze, and disseminate to other agencies the communications of people inside the US, including US citizens.” (3).
Employees from the NSA, such as Kinne, knew what they were doing was wrong, however, continued because it was their job; it was what they were told to do. According to Kinne’s interview with ABC, “collection of phone conversations US soldiers and aid workers in Iraq had with their families in the US continued even after NSA analysts knew that the telephone numbers on which they were eavesdropping belonged to Americans who had no ties to terrorism.” (1). Yet, Bush administration officials such as Michael Hayden, head of the CIA, contend that the program is “narrowly focused and drilled on protecting the nation from al-Qaeda and organizations affiliated.” (2). And eventually, as Kinne later pointed out in her ABC interview, the meaningless “eavesdropping” that happens at the NSA takes away from the true reason that the agency was established in the first place. “It’s harder to find the piece of information that might be actually useful; this is actually hurting our ability to effectively protect our national security.” (2). The legislation of the PAA act as well as the NSA are too vague; the government has too much discretion over what is listened to. If the government were allowed this much power when eavesdropping on private speech, imagine what implications this could have on free speech, over a public or private medium. The burden would be on the speakers to defend what they say if it falls into the government’s “terrorism category”. And for that matter, where would the category end? Where would government discretion end, if almost anything and everything said over any medium was under surveillance as possible terrorist speech? I disagree strongly that this is what the founding fathers had in mind when writing the “freedom of speech” part of the first amendment.
Essentially, the government is taking an ultra-neoliberal stance in allowing itself such power over the privacy of a telephone conversation to protect the public’s security. The PAA goes along with the neoliberal belief in active government; thus, if the government isn’t involved, neoliberals argue that citizens’ freedom is being violated. While yes, obviously the public’s freedom could be violated by a terrorist attack, I believe that giving the government the ability to listen in on any phone conversation without a warrant is going a bit far. There must be other means of detecting terrorism that do not involve a power-hungry government.
Footnotes:
1) Center for Democracy and Technology, October 9, 2008
2) “Exclusive: Inside Account of US Eavesdropping on Americans”, By Brian Ross, Vic Walter, and Anna Schecter, October 9, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1
3) Center for Democracy and Technology; “Minimization Cannot Be Relied Upon to Protect the Rights of Americans under a Warrantless Surveillance Program”, September 17, 2007
http://www.cdt.org/security/20070917mimization-memo.pdf
4) “NSA Warrentless Surveillance Controversy” Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
5 comments:
Back in 2001 when the terrorist attacks occurred, no one truly understood what was happening. All everybody knew was that this country was now a world target. Many felt that the government should use any means necessary to protect our borders. They drew up the Patriot act as a quick fix and this allowed them to wire tap phone conversations and trace emails of people with suspected ties to the terrorist world. Most didn’t care about what they gave up, as long as they felt safe. Now people feel as if their privacy is being infringed upon. But where does the government’s responsibility in keeping this nation safe begin and end? National security is a touchy subject with my background of a family that is entrenched in New York law enforcement, I may be somewhat biased. Do I feel that the government has taken their actions a bit far and left the wording of these acts very broad, YES. On the other hand though, I think if they were to tighten up these acts a bit, they would still have a great effect on national security. I am a strong believer in preventative measures when dealing with terrorism. We cannot leave ourselves vulnerable to attack again. The government has taken steps to attempt to assure of that safety net. They may have stepped over the line, but at least they stepped.
In today's world everything we do is either being taped or recorded. So I'm not really that surprised that the government has been doing all of these things without warrants. This brings to mind the Patriot Act that lets the government listen in on phone calls in the US, and monitoring some emails being sent. I can understand why they would do this, but to abuse that power is atrocious. The government nowadays is pretty messed up so I ca understand how some people might not trust it. The entire blog is good, however it seems that the last paragraph is really where I get to hear more of you. I guess that could be good or bad depending. But the topic was a really good choice seeing as how so many people are affected by the governments decisions.
I remember doing a government debate on the Bush Administration's implementation of the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. For one thing, this was one very unpopular decision because simply put, the government no longer needs probable cause to undergo search and seizure procedures on U.S. property. Now in 2007, the provisions to the act allowed government agencies to conduct search and seizures without a warrant as long as they were doing terorist related- investigations. In addition, people don't have to be affiliated with a terrorist background for the government to wire tap their phones. That puts a lot of reason of doubt on the public. I'd go as far as to call into question the role of the government and how far invasion of privacy rights really flow.
An Iranian friend of mine told me that she wouldn't be surprised if the government was wire tapping all the phone lines in her home. Her family is paranoid to the point where they don't use their home phones anymore. Now when one can't simply pick up their phone for fear that the government is monitoring their conversations, we know we're dealing with an invasion of privacy issue. The PAA itself is demonstrating too much government invasion of property because people are discouraged from speaking on their phones-- an means of communicating free speech to private parties. Even if the government was not truly snooping on people's phone conversations, the fact that people feel the need to stray away from that medium of communication shows that the government is placing the burden on the speakers and causing this chilled speech to occur.
Also, for people who are placed under scrutinized examination, they have to give up personal identifications such as fingerprints and social security numbers that they otherwise would not have to reveal had the police not thrown the wrong person in jail. For example, Portland, Oregon Attorney Brandon Mayfield was arrested and held for two weeks in May 2004. The FBI were after him because allegedly Mayfield's fingerprint matched the one uncovered at the sight of the train bombing in Madrid that killed 191 people. After the authorities received FISA warrants that allowed them to electronically monitor Mayfield's home and office, they found nothing. They released him because the person whom the authorities were after was an Algerian terrorist. Mistakes like this simply disrupt people's individual right to privacy. This act was unconstitutional on the government's part and could've been handled without putting the attorney behind bars and eventually recompensating the individual by throwing 2 million dollars at his face. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/29/national/main2216468.shtml
I agree that the government listening to phone conversations without warrant is crossing the line of protecting the freedom of speech for the public. It's really a toss up on what rights Americans have in the age of technology and terrorism. This is all the more reasons to restrict government encroachment in forums of free speech.
Part of the website I was referring to got cutt off. I'll try again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/29/national/main2216468.shtml
national/main2216468.shtml
sorry, this is the rest of the same website. only "national" once.
Post a Comment