America is not new to investigations done through wiretapping.  Just think of it this way—this country has many enemies as much as it has numerous allies.  To allay any fears on acts of terrorism or other evil plots, the country found it necessary to listen in to some telephone conversations. 

Innocent citizens felt that the government reached the point bordering abuse and, by then, the concern peaked to the release of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) by the Congress about 30 years ago.   FISA gave birth to the FISA court which aimed to hamper abuses on government surveillances in the 70’s.

The FISA court ascertained that a warranty should be granted first by the judges before the surveillance team can set up any wiretapping.  Everything went on well until that fateful day of September 11, 2001.  The big question then was, why didn’t the intelligence community sense the impending danger?

Bush took immediate action by secretly setting up the ‘warrantless’ program for wiretapping.  This meant that the FISA court was no longer asked to give any permission (as the court did not have any idea of the existence of such a program!).  International phone calls and e-mails were filtered by Bush’s group for quite awhile before the information on their existence leaked.

Protests from several lawmakers have since ensued (Representative Loretta Sanchez, Senator Diane Feinstein and Junior Senator Barbara Boxer, among a few).  These lawmakers have all agreed that the FISA court must give out warrants before ‘any’ type of surveillance (Bush’s group included).  Representative Sanchez stresses that it only takes 3 hours to get a warrant from FISA and this is not asking too much. 

Other lawmakers take the other side of the coin.  They’d like to think that compromised privacy is a small price to pay when it’s safety that is being discussed.  It is true that intercepting phone or e-mail messages could be a deterrent to any acts of terrorism.  In fact, no terrorist acts have taken place since 9/11. 

But then, again, if the people who are allowed to do wiretapping become ‘undisciplined’ (even just for a second), wouldn’t that be like living in a glass house?  What would stop these people from prying into private conversations and personal messages?  Indeed, the intelligence community has done so much in protecting the country from further attacks but that shouldn’t be a license to become ‘peeping toms’. 

There is wisdom in the saying that there should be balance in all things.  FISA court could be that balance.  It could become the fulcrum that stabilizes what the intelligence people ask for (safety of the nation) and the concerned citizens’ plea (a life lived in privacy).

Re-Tweet This Post