“Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk . . . I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times . . . I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups 1 . . . One 2 minute phone conversation . . . here . . . operative overseas . . . could lead to loss of American lives. 2 ” – President George W. Bush
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was established by Congress in 1978. It requires the National Security Administration (NSA) to have a warrant in order to monitor any communications within the United States. An eleven-member court was set up under the FISA to approve or deny the requests for warrants. However, in the case of an emergency, the NSA was allowed to search/monitor without a warrant for 72 hours, provided they applied for one upon the conclusion of those 72 hours.
Despite the apparent cut-and-dried requirements of the FISA, President Bush has admitted to authorizing the NSA to monitor, without a warrant, international phone calls and emails. This admission came after the New York Times published an article on this authorization. How the news was leaked to the Times is uncertain, but they claim that the article was held back for a year whilst a search was conducted to determine the legality of revealing the information and whether the United States would be placed in jeopardy if it were revealed. In the President’s admission, he stated that he had been authorizing this eavesdropping since October of 2001, and has re-approved it at least 30 times.
The reason for this is not that it is difficult for the NSA to acquire warrants, for information from the Department of Justice shows that between 1979 and 2004 there were 18,724 wiretaps approved, and 3 denied. Interestingly enough, all three of the denied warrants occurred in 2003.3 The President claims that it is was done in a way that is “consistent with U.S. Laws and the Constitution”. That is a very fascinating observation, considering that the President’s power under the Constitution is rather limited. As Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
As Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) stated, “They talk about constitutional authority. There are limits to what the president can do.” And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “If Bush is allowed to decide unilaterally who the potential terrorists are, he becomes the court.” 4
And Amendment IV of the US Constitution states:
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.
The monitoring of emails and phone calls can be seen to fall under unreasonable searches of persons and effects. The question is whether you agree or not. Do you think it is reasonable to have someone tap into your phone call to someone outside the United States? Do you think it is reasonable for a government official to read your emails if they are sent to someone outside of the United States? Do you support the President’s decision to authorize the NSA to monitor phone calls and emails originating in the United States without a warrant?
1 http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/index.html
2 http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/2093957.html
3 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/03/bush.nsa.tm/
4 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179067,00.html
All this proves (if it wasn’t proven before) is how little Bush cares for the Constitution. He is way too enamored with his own power, and is clearly determined to trample our rights whenever he sees fit. Anyone who says anything anti-government could be called a terrorist is a government snoop happens to be listening in. Obviously, Bush thinks we need to be monitored strictly, but he doesn’t anyone monitoring his actions. “Who will guard the guards?” some ask. It is the government that needs to be watched and limited, far more than the people. The “war on terror”, sadly, is being used to strengthen the government stranglehold on the American people.