The Spy Game - When Was The Line Crossed
I actually wrote this paper in October 2007 and came across it when doing research for another paper. This is a controversial topic, but I felt that I should share this paper...and I strongly feel that the Obama administration has followed in the footsteps of the Bush administration in terms of domestic spying...
Thanks for reading....
~Micki
Thanks for reading....
~Micki
The Spy Game
When Was The Line Crossed?
When Was The Line Crossed?
What thoughts race through your mind when you hear the term “spying”?
For most we visualize 007, his glamorous lifestyle, his leading ladies, and his
ability to get the information needed while keeping his dinner jacket
impeccably clean. Those who understand military a little better will probably
envision ordinary people going into dangerous situations for the sole purpose
of obtaining secret information to aid our government and military. Now think
on this term “domestic spying”. For the idealists, they are probably picturing June
Cleaver cleverly obtaining information about her neighbors and such while
cooking a seven-course meal and cleaning the house from top to bottom. Although
some could argue that by using the term domestic, you must surely be referring to
the local beauty parlor and its gaggle of gossiping blue-hairs. In either case,
the pictures brought to mind are of harmless gossipers extracting the tiniest
iota of information from their unsuspecting victims. While part of this statement
is true regarding domestic spying, this is a far more disturbing issue than the
local beauty parlor’s gaggle of women.
Domestic spying is probably one of the most secretive
controversial issues that the United States of America faces today. People are
becoming more and more irate over big business and the government stepping
forward and thrusting their noses into their lives. United States citizens
desire privacy and fairness from their government. This issue raises the debate
about whether the government is stepping over the line and how the people can
protect themselves from their own government.
The NSA had the following to report, “NSA warrantless
surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United
States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National
Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program,
referred to by the Bush administration as the “terrorist surveillance program”,
the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls and other
communication originating from parties outside the U.S. with known or suspected
links to al Qaeda, even if the terminus of that communication lies within the
U.S. Shortly before passing a new law in August of 2007 that legalized
warrantless surveillance, critics in the Democratic Party contended that such “domestic”
intercepts require FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, while the Bush administration maintains that the authorized
intercepts are not domestic but rather “foreign intelligence” integral to the
conduct of was and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly
superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military
Force (AUMF).” (http://en.wikipedia.org)
United States citizens are outraged by the Bush
administration’s lack of concern for the opinions and beliefs of the very
people they swore to listen to and have their best interests in mind when any
decisions were made. Civil liberties groups filed two lawsuits against the
President of the United States and the National Security Agency. “Federal
lawsuits were filed … seeking to halt President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping
program, calling it an “illegal and unconstitutional program” of electronic
eavesdropping on American citizens. The lawsuits accusing Bush of exceeding his
constitutional powers were filed in federal court in New York by the Center for
Constitutional Rights and in Detroit by the American Civil Liberties Union.” (www.msnbc.com)
President Bush has come forth to defend his decision by
stating “It seems logical to me that if we know there’s a phone number
associated with al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliate and they’re making phone
calls, it makes sense to find out why,” Mr. Bush said. “They attacked us
before, they’ll attack us again.” (www.cbsnews.com)
Many American citizens are asking what impact will domestic
spying have on our already tremulous society. Many fear that the government is
trying to stick their noses in even deeper in the daily livings of its people. The
phrase “big brother is watching you” comes to mind and it makes many fear that
the once beloved government is now going to dominate the people without a care
to what the people truly want. Even though President Bush defends domestic
spying and claims that it only encompasses calls placed to the United States,
what is to stop them at that level? They have breached the trust of its people
and the paranoia is already evident in some aspects as we, the citizens of the
United States of America, live in fear that our own lives will no longer be
ours. There are some people in the “less governed” states (the ones with less
populations and therefore less pull in Washington) who are barricading
themselves into their homes, building fortress-like exterior walls and
stockpiling food, water, and weaponry because they fear the worst from their
government.
As paranoia spreads throughout the country, people are going
to begin suspecting each other of hideous crimes and instead of banding
together to present a united front to our government, we will become divided
and suspicious of every movement that our neighbors make, wondering if they are
spying on you and what they have found out. Even the most innocent will become
guarded and they violence rates will begin to increase as people protect
themselves from this invisible threat to their privacy.
The conflict perspective and the functionalist perspectives
can be used to analyze the problem and threat of domestic spying. The conflict
perspective for the obvious fact that United States is a nation divided,
divided in that the people fear the government has stepped too far and divided
because the government does not seem to think they stepped far enough. The
conflict arose when the government, in the name of national security,
threatened the privacy of its citizens. The functionalist perspective was also
used because in the minds of the government officials, it is the citizens who
have allowed the deviance to occur. Social expectations toward our government
are failing and as a result we are facing a breakdown of our unity. The citizens
of the United States of America are beginning to feel the pressure of “big
brother” watching their every move and is stirring a paranoia within its midst.
Comments
Post a Comment