ACLU v. NSA

Should the executive branch have the power to spy on Americans without a warrant to help stop the war on terror? YES

• Putting a terrorist on trial after an attack means nothing because thousands of lives are already lost or they committed suicide in the action
• Prevention&Protection
• We can't get a warrant because we don't know who we're looking for. This is a matter of national security which is a higher prority than right to privacy.

-Korematsu v. U.S and Schenk v. U.S. in order to protect the country sometimes rights need to be sacraficed.

• In the constitution the president is named as the commander in chief. Due to the fact that this does lie written in the constituion this duty is above any other according ot the fact that it is the supreme law of the land saying so in the supremacy clause. So if our commander in chief decides that this would help out country then so be it. We elected him to take care of our country and this is his way of carrying out his duty.
• This in no way is like we are suggesting we throw out the 4th amendment and that it is no longer valid. We are not saying that any old person can search through your stuff. This is strictly reserved for the executive branch only and under this idea it is for certain that your house will not be searched. It's just date sifting.
• This is an effective way for the executive branch to monitor for suspicious activity.
• This is similar to a police man driving around patrolling a town. THey don't know what they're looking for, they're just driving around looking for suspicious activity, to monitor things, and keep people safe. If they were to see something then they could do in and investigate. Very similar to this process.
• If you're not a terrorist you have nothing to fear, you peace and well being isn't disrupted by this if you are not connected.
• Critics say that this violates the 4th amendment which prohibits "unreasonable search and seizure" however, this is VERY reasonable. We do not want another 9/11.
• Some fear executive branch is abusing their power if given this ability. Fear comes back from memories of Watergate. However, sometimes it's okay for the president to rise up and take control. President Lincoln did during the Civil War and did some things that were questionable by the constitution but he was able to successfully patch up our country and bring us all back together.
• Also some fear the "Big Brother" idea of this. In that society was an all seeing eye (basically) that restricted freedom of speech, press, and thought. That is not even close to what is happeneing in this situation. Nothing is being restricted. Everyone can basically still say and do what ever they'd like.
• No one can even be convicted from the information gathered from this data sifting.

Janet Napolitano

Department of Homeland Security
Title: United States Secretary of Homeland Security
Name: Janet Napolitano

Roles: As head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet's main job is protecting America's homeland and the safety of all its citizens.  This is different than the Department of Defense because instead of focusing on external affairs, it focuses on internal affairs.

"And I am also here to say that if something were to happen, we are prepared to respond swiftly, to respond effectively, and to respond strongly.  That is our tradition as a country.  And that is a tradition that we will uphold, regardless of any circumstance because this nation is one that is very, very strong and, indeed, extraordinarily resilient." - Janet Napolitano

ACLU v. NSA Debate

Should the Executive Branch be able to spy on Americans without a court warrant in order to try to prevent future terrorist attacks on the U.S.?


National Security Agency v. American Civil LIberties Union

The chief executive has declared that NSA has the power to randomly tap people's phones and email and all other electronics without a warrant.  ACLU challenged this law as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a breach of a privacy.  The NSA believes they are within their bounds because they only use this vast technology to catch terrorists and to prevent attacks like 9/11.  This first came to the Court in 2006, and in 2008 Congress passed FISA which gives NSA even more unchecked power.

The NSA is in fault for illegally violating people's constitutional rights to protection from unwarranted and unnecessary search and seizure.


In Katz v. U.S. the 4th Amendment was extended to cover the wiretapping of phones.  In Mapp v. Ohio illegally seized evidence was not allowed to be used in trials.  The 4th Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.  My opponent argued that in Korematsu v. U.S. and Schenck v. U.S. the national security trumped individual rights.  Also that there is good cause for this, because terrorists could bomb our school.

BIG DEBATE

""...the Patriot Act was enacted in an environment where there was virtually no discussion or careful scrutiny. Maybe there shouldn't have been because we needed to act quickly, but now we have the time and room for thought about what we need in the post-9/11 world..." => made sense that it was a time of panic at the time of 9/11, and national security did trump an individual's right to privacy => not any more. It has been proven that it hasn't truly stopped Al Qaeda => ON GOING => virtually impossible to stop this.

Korematsu v. United States => his rights were trumped because of current situation =>It made sense before, doesn't make sense now => thankfully nothing like that has occurred again.

President Bush said, "This nation refuses to live in fear." 'Wouldn't it be living on fear knowing that they are being watched and censored like Big Brother.

If terrorists know that they are being watched, because the government would have access to their every move they might decide to act more cautiously and decide to hold off on the activities that they do => to a harder time.

Though the Patriot Act did effectively help find 2/3 of Al Qaeda's leaders => this is an ongoing war, and Al Qaeda is an on-going organization. NSA is going to have an endless job trying to stop all of them. Just like the KKK, started 1865, it is not completely dissolved. Better to spend time and resources on other issues.

Why do you need to set up a policy about invasion of privacy? You can still do it, there are over 20.6 million attempt of hacker invasions that originate in the United States => isn't that considered an invasion of privacy already. That type of hacking is looked immoral, but the NSA hacking is somehow secure and Ok? Even it has very exclusive access, if all that data falls on the hand of one wrong person, then they would all be in trouble => personal privacy is not protected.

First amendment: Congress shall pass no law......prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition........
People are going to feel invaded and it will lead them to feel uncomfortable and hide their feelings and their speech if they know someone has the potential of listening to the conversation. The first amendment secures that the government does not has the power to diminish this right from people. In efforts of securing national security, the personal security of the citizens is being overlooked.

FOURTH AMMENDMENT: No unreasonable search or seizures without a warrant. =>if they already have their suspected terrorist it is very easy for them to get a warrant then.

Constitutionality of the Patriot Act

1: My opinion is that the security of our nation as a whole is unequivocally worth the slight interruption of privacy necessary to effectively seek out and prevent acts of terror. Since the information gathered under the act is only to be used for anti-terror purposes, no citizen should be concerned about information gathered under the patriot act being used unless he himself is a terrorist. 2: Politicians are hugely divided over this issue. The FISA court was created to issue warrants allowing the electronic surveillance of suspected spies and other undercover threats. However, the court was originally intended to issue long-term warrants dealing with known enemies, and therefore does not concern the same concepts that the patriot act does. 3: In Korematsu v US, the supreme court decided that certain rights could be denied in the interest of national security. Such is the case with the patriot act.

Most people would agree that having some military intelligence analyst in a room somewhere possibly read some of your personal emails is a small price to pay compared to the possible loss of life that could occur in a genuine terrorist attack. After all, if you have nothing to hide it will end at that.

For now the invasion of privacy is the only real threat to our civil liberties, at least for most people. You are still free to say whatever you want, you are still free to bear arms, and own property that is rightfully yours.

Warrantless foreign intelligence collection has been an established practice of the Executive Branch for decades. The Supreme Court has noted that warrantless electronic surveillance "has been sanctioned more or less continuously by various Presidents and Attorneys General since July 1946. Warrantless electronic surveillance has been used by the Executive to collect intelligence information since at least the mid-1800s" .

In the December 2000 criminal prosecution of Osama Bin Laden for the first World Trade Center attack, the Court found that the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement did not apply to searches conducted on foreign nationals overseas - indeed, there was no mechanism for a judge in Manhattan to order a search or interception in Nairobi. But that is overseas. So if the wiretaps were done by the U.S. government against foreign targets overseas, everything would have been ok. But the revelations were that the government was targeting U.S. persons for intercepts based upon some "connection" to some overseas person.

Big Debate

One court case that would provide arguments for the opposite side is the hamdi v rumsfeld case Another major argument against the ACLU is provided by the Patriot Act. The act allows these searches to prevent attacks on national security. Safety is one of our biggest concerns and the protection of national security, may, infringe on rights. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55838