Domestic Surveillance And The Snowden Leak Pros And Cons

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is an American government intelligence agency responsible for collecting data on other countries and sometimes on American citizens in order to protect the country from outside risks. They can collect anything from the people’s phone data to their browser history and use it against them in the court of law. Since the catastrophes of September 11 attacks, the NSA’s surveillance capabilities have grown with the benefit of George W. Bush and the Executive Branch (Haugen 153). This decision has left a country divided for fifteen years, with people who agree that the NSA should be strengthened and others who think their powers should be limited or terminated. Although strengthening NSA surveillance may help the

The US government justifies the invasion to the privacy of their citizens saying it is a matter of security to the country. All of these privacy invasion started days after the 9/11 attack. The government and the NSA say this is a matter of safety for the US, by tracking their people, knowing what they are doing and whom they’re talking to. NSA had been on court ever since the US citizens saw something wrong and all they do is deny what their doing and the only answer that wasn’t a NO was “If our people (NSA employees) do this it isn’t on purpose”. How come can you tell that tracking someone isn’t on purpose?

The PATRIOT Act abuses the privacy of American citizens. It has denied the nationals of this nation of a portion of the essential rights that were guaranteed to them in the Constitution. The rights that the PATRIOT Act puts into jeopardy are intrinsic and it is the responsibility to secure our inherent rights. The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was marked into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Its title is a ten-letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. After the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon the United States has created relief controls

With new found ways of viewing American citizens personal information the federal government had to learn how not to get caught. American citizens have right to their privacy and with all the new Domestic Surveillance programs many were warrantless. In 2002 Bush signed a presidential order allowing the National Security Agency to monitor without a warrant. This presidential order applied to international telephone calls and e-mail messages of thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the United States. This program never had the requirements to obtain or produce a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court but, as the 4th Amendment to the Constitution

NSA infringes on the 1st and 4th Amendment rights. America was the safe zone: a lot of people came to the United States so that they would have the freedom to express who they are, what they believe, and their thoughts without punishment. Edward Snowden, NSA whistle blower, wasn’t allowed that freedom when he made it know what the NSA was doing with Verizon’s phone records. Snowden did break the law but he brought awareness of this dilemma to the average citizen, villain, and hero. In the end, it caused the NSA to change some policies but it doesn’t even make a difference because still the administration continues to collect data without a cause. Correction: the NSA uses surveillance to protect United States of America from terrorist, terrorism and terrorism related crimes… The agency’s interpretation: anyone and anything under the sun.

Ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an area in Pennsylvania, in which nearly 3,000 helpless individuals were killed, the U.S. Congress began to pass legislation that would strengthen the United State’s counterterrorism efforts. Less than a month after the horrific attack, the National Security Agency (NSA) started a “special collection program” with intentions to track communications among suspected terrorists and Al Qaeda leaders. Then on October 4, 2001, President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to monitor domestic communications in order to track down suspected terrorists. Two problems shortly arose from Bush’s decision: the fact that his authorization to NSA was carried out in secret and also that monitoring the domestic communications was done without a warrant. This proved to be illegal since the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act states that the government is prohibited from eavesdropping inside the United States without first getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court). In order to counteract the issues he had caused, on October 26, 2001 Bush signed the Patriot Act; a law that would expand the government’s electronic surveillance powers. After signing this law Bush stated, “The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including emails, the

Although the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) already permitted the administration to wiretap on an emergency basis and apply for warrants retroactively, the administration maintained that FISA was too cumbersome when urgent issues of national security were at stake. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered two justifications for the legality of the domestic spying program, asserting that the president had the "inherent authority under the Constitution, as commander in chief, to engage in this kind of activity" and that Congress, "when it authorize[d] the president to use all necessary and appropriate force" against al-Qaeda in 2001, indirectly sanctioned it. Critics objected that the wiretapping infringed on civil liberties, sidestepped the legislative branch, and placed the president above the law. In August 2006, a federal judge in Detroit ruled the wiretapping program unconstitutional. However, in July 2008, Congress passed a bill overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—effectively legalizing Bush's secret program. The new law gave legal immunity to the telephone companies that participated in the NSA secret wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and broadened the government's ability to eavesdrop on those in the U.S. and abroad it suspects are linked to terrorist

We use technology every day, all day, for pretty much everything we do. Any information about ourselves, messages we send, or phone calls we make, it all takes place on our phones. However, they are also the biggest risk to our personal security as they are very vulnerable. They are not just vulnerable to scammers and hackers but also to our own government. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the president at the time, George Bush, responded by passing an act. This act is known as the Patriot Act. It allows the government unlimited access to phone records, emails, and text messages without a warrant through National Security Letters and Sneak and Peak Searches. Why do they do this, why was this act passed, they claim it’s for our safety. Both can be obtained and carried out without a judge’s approval, without a warrant, and without the knowledge of the person who is being searched. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the citizens to legal and just searches, with a warrant, with probable cause. These are not required under the Patriot Act to search through call histories and messages. The Patriot Act clearly infringes on the Fourth Amendment and the rights of the everyday citizen and does not accomplish its original goal of stopping terrorism.

In practice, the FISC system curtails the constitution, is appointed by a single person, and acts a simple bureaucratic box to tick. The judges of the FISC are appointed solely, without any approval, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice John Roberts and the chief justices before him alone dictate the interpretation of the fourth amendment, a largely republican bias, “[John Roberts] appoints all FISA judges, drawn from the federal bench, and right now 10 of 12 were originally appointed by Republican presidents” (Walsh). Likewise, the warrants issued by FISC are not specific to individuals, organizations, or specific items to be found. They lack essential principles of law, such as probable cause and particularity, “indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of ‘general warrants’ were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment” (Payton). Moreover, the government effectively provides no contest to any NSA search or spying. According to statistics of court rulings, warrants and records requests over the court’s history were denied 0.03% of the time (Center). The current situation of surveillance oversight in the United States is dismal, reckless, and

While the government feels that Snowden is a criminal who is guilty of charges such as theft of government property and violations of the Espionage Act, some prominent figures in America feel different. Senator Bernie Sanders is of the pro-Snowden party who has wrote in The Guardian stating that he feels that Snowden should be granted leniency in the form of either a plea deal or a full pardon. Sanders feelings derive from the belief that the NSA violated constitutional rights with its mass surveillance program (Pilkington). Lastly according to Sanders, he feels that the experience that American citizens have gained through the disclosures has become valuable knowledge.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the US Patriot Act granted was enacted granting wide legal authority to the intelligence community as a defensive measure against future terrorist attacks. Among those new powers, included in Article 215, is the right to obtain business records, while imposing a gag order on the party holding those records. This law remains the foundation upon which the current NSA phone metadata collection campaign is operated.

The new acts state that the NSA may not listen in to phone calls, or read emails, where United States citizens are involved, without the suspicion of them currently residing outside of the United States. However, the new acts require no individualized warrants when any situation that the NSA screens involves, or may involve a person, whether United States citizen or not, who they suspect to have been outside of the United States or currently outside of the United States. As Jack Balkin, professor at Yale Law School states, “The Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President authority to run surveillance programs similar to the warrantless surveillance program (secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001).” And if you still don’t believe that these government programs could be violating the rights given to you by the fourth amendment then look at the response that was published when senators began asking the NSA exactly how many Americans were having their phone calls or emails screened without individualized warrants, “the implication that NSA 's collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false. NSA 's activities are focused and specifically deployed against - and only against - legitimate foreign intelligence targets in response to requirements that our leaders need for information necessary to protect our nation and its interest” (NSA). This statement was published a month before President Obama announced in his

However, Director Nicholas Rasmussen of the National Counterterrorism Center estimates that an estimated three thousand and four hundred westerners have joined the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) (as cited by Yan, 2015). The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (as cited by Perez, 2015) estimates that one hundred and eighty Americans have tried to leave the country, which pales in comparison to citizens of France and the United Kingdom. Muslim youth are not the only youth who become radicalized the problem supersedes religion. However, as terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Boko Haram dominate today’s conversation, looking at the radicalization process from this perspective will help us understand the effects of radicalization on youth. Therefore, this paper seeks to understand what radicalization is, why young people become radicalized, how it works, the mechanisms, and propose counter-radicalization strategies and

The so-called “Islamic State,” also known as ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) or ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), has captivated the world’s attention as of late. Its brutal tactics, vehement opposition to western-influenced societal norms, and ultra-radical interpretation of Sharia law have sent scholars, journalists, government officials, and ordinary citizens into a frenzy trying to comprehend this troubling phenomenon. ISIS is responsible for countless atrocities to include horrific beheadings, immolation, and chilling video releases of hostages and ominous threats. It has proven keenly adept at recruiting new members to its cause; these members hail from many regions around the globe. Led by the