The Wiretapping Debate: George W. Bush and Barack Obama

Wiretapping was unheard of back in the early days of communication when modern technology was still in its early development phase.  As the years sped by and innovations were churned out, so too did forms of unauthorized communications surveillance arise – ushering in complex cases of rights infringement.

Wiretapping as a means to conduct lawful surveillance, particularly of suspects of a horrendous crime or wrongdoing, may seem from the outset like a clever idea whose time has come.  However, it must be considered that certain rights are impinged, notably a person’s right to privacy and security – when wiretapping is carried out.  The question that comes up in a big way is whether telecommunications carriers carrying out the wiretapping act are culpable of violation of the right of privacy. Telecommunication firms utilized as willing accomplices in conducting wiretapping have been said to be shielded by immunity from almost all lawsuits.  This has been met with mixed sentiments and heated debate around the world – especially in the United States. Indeed, telecom carriers have been caught in the furor and a “damn-if-they-do, damn-if-they-don’t” dilemma.

One of the groups which has raised a howl of protest over warrantless wiretapping is that of Democrat United States Senator from Illinois and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. This was during the last week of July of this year, when Obama’s supporters-cum-lobbyists took the fight to another level and enlisted public support through online advertising such as Google AdWords and private advertisements as a move to dissuade public representatives from officially extending support to the sanctioning of President George W. Bush’s administration’s wiretapping program.

The justification of the American government for the push for warrantless wiretapping, led by President Bush and his Administration members, is that it is vital to the American nation’s security. Hence, the United States government believes there is no need for the issuance of warrants to conduct wiretapping, so long as the parties have “national interest” in mind.  By national interest, the government may well want people to believe that it will only use these powers for specific cases of “national interest” such as imminent danger of terrorism. Many perceptive people contend, though, that this is tantamount to an extension of executive powers, in that it will authorize wiretapping to back up its rules on terrorism or espionage of security threats.

The terms “national interest” are vague enough to be open to several meanings that may not necessarily translate to national welfare. In reality, it is not a remote possibility that this surveillance mechanism may actually be used for self-serving federal purposes other than national security. It can be used for furthering political agenda, or for eavesdropping on political enemies who may be far from being terrorist-suspects, among other things. Most political and legal experts agree that warrantless wiretapping only becomes appropriate if it really is conducted when there is probable cause to believe that a person or group on one end of the telephone line, of foreign nationality, is part of a terrorist group.

Interestingly, the United States government obtained the Senate’s nod of approval to revise the wiretapping rules it battled for. The new version of the controversial bill was signed into law by President Bush in early August. Making a surprising turnaround to express his support was Barack Obama, who had earlier balked at the wiretapping bill’s earlier provision on immunity. The Bush Administration’s intelligence team and other supporters consider the passage of the wiretapping law a landmark development, especially in light of concerns following the September 11 World Trade Center terrorist attack.  The new version of the law actually did away with the necessity for warrants in cases involving the tracking of foreign terrorist-suspects abroad.  Warrants will still be required for cases involving Americans in United States territory or for United States citizens overseas.

President Bush caught much flak in the political arena for imposing what many critics considered an unconstitutional method of sanctioning surveillance without obtaining warrants. These warrants were supposed to be obtained from a specially created court created by Congress to oversee domestic spying. What many from various political quarters have insisted on, however, is that the Bush Administration may well have had its way in using the wiretap law as a means to conduct surveillance on terrorist suspects while at the same time agreeing to the specialized international court’s review of the wiretap program.  Based on published reports, for a time the United States government led by Bush had publicly acquiesced to the idea of seeking warrants from a secret court while privately and simultaneously undertaking the eavesdropping on the phone calls made by Americans.

Indeed, there has been much furor both within and outside the United States over warrantless wiretapping. The controversy it brings to mind the Watergate scandal and its counterparts in other parts of the world, whereby both power and technology were misused and extensive abuses were made as part of surveillance measures that were divulged in Congressional hearings. Warrantless wiretaps – as history has shown – have been conducted in the past on vigilant journalists and also staff members of the White House. Take note of our previous article on journalism shield laws: Journalistic Prison: National Intelligence Opinion on Shield Laws.

As key officials of the land are quick to claim, wiretaps are only being done for national security purposes, but many claim these wiretaps are usued illegally for illicit government operations which may fall outside of federal law. President Bush and his administration are adamant, though, that the new law, which is an updated version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,  in no way manifests any implication of governmental reach possibly extending beyond the bounds of authority. In fact, the administration is convinced that the wiretapping ruling addresses major loopholes in existing United States laws regarding eavesdropping on potential terroristic groups or individuals.

Through the wiretapping law, phone calls, e-mails and other communications of foreign nationals passing through the United States may be intercepted and as the government asserts, will back up the fight against terror.

Conducting warrantless wiretaps on Americans suspected of maintaining access to or having ties to terrorism-suspects is an issue that has long been in the news. The issue has raised much speculation for over two years now.  While part of the population in the U.S.A. has expressed serious doubts that the Bush Administration will focus the foreign-intelligence wiretapping solely on security concerns, a majority are willing to give full reign to the Bush Administration in order to parlay its role of keeping America safe from terroristic chaos and harm.

Pondering on some of the lessons gleaned from all the uproar and debates on the wiretap law – ­­ among the insights learned from the endless discussion and lamentation – is the fact that telephone lines, as portrayed in many movies, are not really that secure.  This being the case, the most cunning terroristic groups may now actually be thinking twice before using this method for communication in order to remove the risk of being tracked – this is a possible advantage of the wiretapping program.

Do you feel the wiretapping program is necessary to maintain United States security or this a violation of civil rights?