2008 Woodie Awards
Did the media overstep its bounds in outing secret NSA spy program?
Point-counter-Point
Patrick Donley
Issue date: 1/26/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Media must serve as a government watchdog to prevent tyrrany.
By: Trent Orris
Let me start off by saying I can understand both sides of the wiretapping issue. I understand people who say it is an invasion of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. I also understand those who would say it is okay when being done in the name of national security.
However, I must admit that people who are upset at the media for reporting the recent government wire-tapping story puzzle me. The last time I checked, this was America. We have a thing called the Bill of Rights, in which the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" How can someone be mad at an institution, media, for whistle-blowing the government when its very nature is to say things the government might not want to hear?
Some critics say there are exceptions to the press' freedom regarding government. With respect to governmental information, the government can protect material from disclosure to the public and press if it is sensitive, classified or otherwise relevant to protecting the national interest. Therefore, it is legal for U.S. government agencies to tap phone conversations without letting anybody know about it, provided they obtain a warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court beforehand.
So what's the problem? As it turns out, wiretaps are reportedly being employed without FISC consent. This is illegal. It is perfectly fine (in fact, encouraged) that media report on illegal activities undertaken by the government in order to prevent tyranny.
It is difficult to understand why the administration would even take such evasive measures, considering that the FISC hardly ever rejects a warrant request. Regardless, these actions are still against the law.
Critics spout that media's report is a danger to national security. This argument is not that uncommon but nonetheless flawed. In China, whistle-blowers of government corruption are jailed and sometimes executed in the name of national security. President Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy and their cronies spied on a number of Americans illegally in the 1960's, also citing national security as an excuse (obviously, it wasn't a very good one.)
By: Trent Orris
Let me start off by saying I can understand both sides of the wiretapping issue. I understand people who say it is an invasion of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. I also understand those who would say it is okay when being done in the name of national security.
However, I must admit that people who are upset at the media for reporting the recent government wire-tapping story puzzle me. The last time I checked, this was America. We have a thing called the Bill of Rights, in which the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" How can someone be mad at an institution, media, for whistle-blowing the government when its very nature is to say things the government might not want to hear?
Some critics say there are exceptions to the press' freedom regarding government. With respect to governmental information, the government can protect material from disclosure to the public and press if it is sensitive, classified or otherwise relevant to protecting the national interest. Therefore, it is legal for U.S. government agencies to tap phone conversations without letting anybody know about it, provided they obtain a warrant from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court beforehand.
So what's the problem? As it turns out, wiretaps are reportedly being employed without FISC consent. This is illegal. It is perfectly fine (in fact, encouraged) that media report on illegal activities undertaken by the government in order to prevent tyranny.
It is difficult to understand why the administration would even take such evasive measures, considering that the FISC hardly ever rejects a warrant request. Regardless, these actions are still against the law.
Critics spout that media's report is a danger to national security. This argument is not that uncommon but nonetheless flawed. In China, whistle-blowers of government corruption are jailed and sometimes executed in the name of national security. President Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy and their cronies spied on a number of Americans illegally in the 1960's, also citing national security as an excuse (obviously, it wasn't a very good one.)