Connor Hersey
February 13, 2012
Zalecki
Should the government be able to wiretap your phone without a warrant?
This is a very difficult question to answer: on one hand we all want to have a sense of security from terrorism and approve of the necessary actions to prevent it, yet on the other hand we do not want to allow the government the right to invade our privacy without any legal process of justification. When it comes down to it, I prefer to look at the future implications of the Patriot Act and how it will affect us post-War on Terror. There is support for unwarranted wiretapping in the present day because people are afraid of the treat of terrorism post-9/11. After the initial shock on society has worn away and the threat of terrorism slips into the back of our minds, will there be any public favor for unwarranted wiretapping?
I personally do not think so, and I believe there are other ways of addressing the threat of terrorism. Some of the terrorist who helped plan and act out the attacks of 9/11 were living on American soil undetected for extended periods of time prior to the attacks. They were here illegally and nobody really knew about it until after the damage had been done. I do not see how being able to invade their privacy without a warrant would have helped the government find those terrorists any easier. To tap their phones the authorities would need to first have some sort of suspicion that these guys were international terrorists; something more than just a racist hunch with no real evidence (i.e. they are not going to exhaust their efforts on something they do not believe to be leading somewhere). At that point, don't you think it would be relatively easy to get a warrant to tap their phones and invade their privacy? They could do all of this secretly without blowing their cover until they are at the door serving their warrant (the USA Patriot Act allows for authorities to search a premises without notifying the occupants; as long as nothing is removed).
It is a very sensitive issue and it is really difficult to argue one direction or the other because you cannot sacrifice the privacy of terrorists without also sacrificing that of U.S. citizens. That said, I believe that there are ways around sacrificing the privacy of citizens. I do not think that the government should be able to tap our phones without a warrant. Let's be honest, most of us are not terrorists and most of the conversations we have on the phone or online are not conversations we're afraid to show the police; however, privacy is sacred to most and when it comes to having or not having it, most of us would choose to have it regardless of wether or not it makes it easier or more difficult to catch a criminal. The rights and privacy of American citizens should not be sacrificed in the name of hunting terrorists. The Patriot Act would legalize pretty '1984'-type means of surveillance such as roving wiretaps and even the release of your private communication records to the government from your electronic communications service provider. I do not think that allowing the government to freely infiltrate our privacy as they please is right. When the whole War on Terror is settled and news networks are no longer throwing around the word 'terrorist' at anybody who disagrees with America, I think that many people will look at the Patriot Act scornfully.
Tyler, Raven. "NewsHour Extra: The USA Patriot Act -- February 12, 2003." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/patriot.html>.
NewsHour, Online. "The Online NewsHour: Domestic Security | The USA Patriot Act | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/terrorism/homeland/patriotact.html>.
"NewsHour Extra Teacher Resources." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec03/patriotact_9-17.html>.
