Government Eavesdropping

LAWMAKERS GET EAVESDROPPING DETAILS
Sacramento Bee; Feb 1, 2007 Written by The McClatchy Washington Bureau’s Greg Gordon

Dear Editor,

I feel strongly that the F.B.I and N.S.A. must have the ability to gather intelligence which may prevent future terrorist issues from arising, but that this power must never exceed the protection afforded by our civil liberties, protected by the U.S. Constitution.

For the government to go through the process of seeking warrants through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) each time they suspect some “foreign entity” may be linked to terrorist or otherwise extremist groups would appear to be a devastating waste of time. In point of fact, it is a necessary step in the process we have in place. We are after all, in a time of conflict and the government needs to do all it deems necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the American people. With that said, there is a process in place, making allowances for these activities, to ensure that in the process there are not any infringements on our civil liberties. Security agencies, like the F.B.I. or N.S.A. can not be allowed to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans on the basis of preventative measures, this being one importance facet of due process. Our civil liberties are in place to restrict certain powers of the government. Due process sees to it that these restrictions are respected.

Clearly, the problem isn’t in the monitoring of people in the interest of National security. The problem lies in the complete disregard for the process of acquiring a warrant to conduct such activity. Unwarranted surveillance is illegal. In comparison, it is no different than opening somebody else’s mail. If deemed necessary, this must be processed through the FISA court to ensure that our civil liberties are not being trampled in the process.

The fact that some people feel as though the government is crossing the line, in respect to Americans' civil liberties and privacy, can not be a secondary concern taking a back seat to national security. Even though the right of privacy is not expressly given in the Constitution or clearly defined in our bill of rights. It is an implied right, inherent with freedom and protected by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which ruled that the right of privacy is protected by the Constitution. After which, the case of Roe v. Wade made the issue of a Constitutional right of privacy even more explicit. In addition, many state constitutions carry an additional protection explicitly outlining privacy.

Unlawful surveillance may also be construed as infringing on the Fourth Amendment, which protects the rights of Americans against unwarranted searches. The President does however hold an inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless “foreign” intelligence surveillance, based out of a November 2002 appeals court decision. This however, does not extend to unlawful or warrantless surveillance of Americans. Even counterterrorism powers granted by Congress under the USA Patriot Act did not allow for the internal surveillance of American citizens.

In conclusion, there has to be a clearly defined process of insuring that through surveillance, electronic or otherwise, there are parameters in place to protect against the infringement of civil liberties. This process is the FISA court. Anyone within the borders of the United States are protected, either through citizenship or residency by these civil liberties. Unlawful surveillance should never occur if we are to remain a free country with inherent Constitutional rights.