Via patriotupdate.com

Jan72015

NSA: Question the Government Before Giving Up Liberties

National • Politics

“You people don’t know what freedom is because you never lost it.” In February 2014, Cuban refugee Manuel Martinez proclaimed this statement to Oregon lawmakers who were attempting to impose a gun control law. Martinez’s statement brings up something that has haunted America, especially in the twenty-first century: understanding the essence of freedom. Recently, tech giants Apple and Google have announced that they will release cellular devices that prohibit the government from monitoring people’s phones by means of encryption. FBI director, James Comey, has spoken out against what the companies are marketing saying that he is “very concerned” that the companies are “marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law.” This recent event spurs an issue much greater in America: the difference between privacy and security as it relates to the role of the NSA. In protection of the American people, the NSA has no right to monitor the lives of the American people without issue of warrants because it does not secure American lives, and it is an infringement on their privacy.

 

The fight against unwarranted monitoring of Americans has been an issue since 1761 when England’s parliament enacted the “Writs of Assistance” under King George III. This law allowed the King’s agents to search anything they suspected, just like the government allows the NSA to monitor anything and anyone it suspects. The colonists were obviously irate and later challenged the “Writs of Assistance” in court in Boston, Massachusetts. Defending lawyer James Otis declared this law “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty, and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.” Otis pointed out the problem of the King allowing agents to act as they desire. Although the event happened over 250 years ago, the problem still persists as the government has allowed the NSA to monitor the American people without probable cause, something that the fourth amendment defends when spying on citizens.

 

The issue of the NSA spying on the American people has spurred several issues pertaining to privacy that raises the question: How can we draw the line between privacy and security? Unfortunately, it was the government outlawing condoms that led the Supreme Court to declaring that there is a right to privacy. That right was established in Griswold v. Connecticut. But drawing the line between privacy and security is actually quite simple: the only way the NSA should be allowed to spy on the American citizens is upon probable clause; all else is infringement on the right to privacy, clearly established in the fourth amendment, which 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.” Although parts of the Bill of Rights are broad and not too specific, the fourth amendment is quite clear: The people shall not be searched and seized unless there is probable clause followed by an issued warrant.

 

Most who are posed with this solution to the NSA will then ask: “How do we prevent crimes from occurring if we are not monitoring the American people?” It is possible to prevent crimes from occurring without sacrificing the Bill of Rights. It is reasonable for the NSA, among other national security organizations, to tap into phone calls or emails coming from nations outside of the United States. They can then use those phone calls and emails to link them to American citizens. Because the there was a phone call or email from a terrorist organization or some other country that the U.S. is not friendly with to someone in America, that gives such security organizations in America “reasonable cause” to spy, after the issue of a warrant, on that American citizen. However, it is neither warranted nor constitutional for the NSA to simply spy on America citizens to search for reasonable cause. Reasonable cause is not something to be searched for by undermining people’s privacy; it is something that someone notices to give that person reasonable cause. For example, if someone has something oddly shaped sticking out of his or her bag, that is reasonable cause. However, it is not reasonable cause for someone to be spied on then have their home searched and seized because they have recently researched Islamic groups. In addition, one warrant cannot casino be issued for the entire American population. Currently, the NSA can spy on any American citizen as if one warrant covers the entire population. This is unconstitutional because such a warrant is too broad to describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” as the fourth amendment states. That the NSA is authorized to implement such an act should be alarming to the nation. If we relate this issue to school, this is like using “www.google.com” in a bibliography to cover fifteen unique sources. Is there something wrong with that?

 

The next question that someone will respond with is: “Should we not sacrifice some of our privacy for security?” Even if the American people did agree to this, such a method would not actually secure someone. This is like saying we need a policemen in every house to prevent child beating. Yes, this may work very well, but it is an undermining of the American people’s liberties. It defeats the purpose of the American Revolution, a battle fought for liberty. Nonetheless, if you advocate the police state you will have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then is against the American people; it is against their freedoms. Take North Korea for example. North Korea is a prime example of what George Orwell depicted in his 1984. There are video cameras, spies, and military forces that subjugate the people. This is an example of a police state. Although there is much security for the people, the people are subjugated and tortured by the government. Ultimately, there is no need to sacrifice privacy and personal liberties for safety because this type of action is one of which tyrannical governments impose upon people to gain power.

 

“But what if those from the NSA are monitoring people by use of machines or algorithms?” Some who argue this point will say that the algorithm will monitor a mass of data and only display red flags. This is like saying that a person constructs a robot that goes to people’s houses to monitor them and then comes back to the NSA to report any red flags. This is still an intrusion of privacy and a violation of the fourth amendment. Merely because the NSA may use machines to monitor people does not mean that it is constitutional. Whether a robot knocking on people’s doors or an algorithm used to monitor people, this is an obstruction of the American people’s liberty, something of which the American people should not yield to.

 

Instead of all the questions that try to constitutionalize the NSA’s spying on American citizens, why do we not ask the question that Ron Paul did during his 2012 campaign: “What is the penalty for the people who deliberately destroy the constitution and rationalize and say, ‘we have to do it for security?’” That the NSA is so secretive that no one really knows what is going on except for top government officials is an issue that should be addressed. This organization, if further implemented, should be more transparent because the American people have a right to understand what the NSA and other organizations are doing because the government is supposed to be “for the people, by the people.” If it were not for Edward Snowden, now known as a whistleblower, the American people would still be blind to the actions that the NSA takes. We should take the NSA problem into consideration with what Benjamin Franklin declared about liberty: “They who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We do not have to strive to make it seem like what the NSA, among organizations, is doing is constitutional. Read the constitution and understand the fourth amendment. Also make sure that you think real hard before you quickly decide to sacrifice your liberties for a little security.

 

Sources:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.