Opinions to the editor

The TPJ wants to hear from you! The Publications Committee will poll members concerning their thoughts on some of the "hot topics" of the day. During each quarter, the Committee will draft a question, which will be distributed to membership through the Directors. Each question will direct you as to where to send your response. We will print the responses in the following TPJ, reserving the right to edit for space considerations. While we prefer to print a name and a city with each response, we understand that some of you may prefer that we not print your name. We will honor this request, so long as the response is not contrary to the objectives of the Paralegal Division or the Publications Committee. We hope that this column provides a way for PD members to express themselves, constructively, on issues that impact our profession, our communities and our country.

Question of the Quarter: What are your thoughts on "warrantless surveillance of some U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency" which as recently been making the headlines?

RESPONSE 1: According to the Rasmussen Report, 64% of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Only 23% disagree. Given these figures, that is not to say that the U.S. is—or should—monitor calls of just anyone. The primary goal of my country should be to keep the citizens of our country safe to the highest extent possible.

This country watched helplessly in horror as terrorist attacks invaded this country, destroying two massive buildings and over 3,000 lives. Unfortunately, this was not the first incident in which our country has been targeted by terrorists.  In fact, New York and other major cities have been bombed several times before.  One of the most devastating facts to discover was that the terrorists had come into our country, portrayed themselves as ordinary citizens taking flying lessons, entering universities, and enjoying life here, and then commandeering our planes to destroy property and lives in our country. It was almost as if we had a gun in our hands and someone forced us to turn it on ourselves and fire it.

I believe that aggressive acts against this country require aggressive action by our leaders to prevent such tragedies from occurring again. Some people are worried and horrified that someone’s rights could be violated.  But these are not ordinary people who should be monitored. Most job applications in our country require a response to the question of prior criminal activity or convictions. I believe the same should be asked of aliens who come into this country—what their intentions for being here are. And for a period of time—with cause—their activities should be monitored until it is determined that their move to this country is genuine and innocent.

I do not blame our country’s leaders for taking what looks like drastic actions. I believe the world we live in today warrants it. And I sleep better at night knowing that my country has our best interests in mind.

RESPONSE 2: If we let the terrorists push us to turn our backs on our own Constitution, then we have let them win a great victory. 

RESPONSE 3: This is a time of war. Have we forgotten September 11, 2001? I don’t think surveillance is warrantless at this time.  It is absolutely necessary for our country’s protection and safety.

 Jan McDaniel, Midland

RESPONSE 4: As Americans, we must understand that our Freedom is not free. Today’s United States is not the same as it was 50 years ago. We elect government officials, who in turn appoint others, to protect us and guarantee us the freedom we enjoy, and often take for granted. If ‘spying’ is intended for the good of every U.S. citizen to ensure our safety, I’m all for it. After all, I’ve done nothing I need to hide.

RESPONSE 5: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was passed by Congress in response to former President Nixon’s "national security" claims, was implemented to strike a delicate balance between national security interests and the privacy rights of American citizens. The current administration’s failure to use the FISA Court for obtaining warrants on its claim of national security in the war on terror, seeks to undermine the rules that serve as our foundation for freedom. The standard as laid out by General Hayden is a "reasonable basis to believe," which is a lower standard than "probable cause" – the standard on which the FISA Court was created.

To quote wise founders of this country: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men." – John Adams; and "The accumulation of such powers in the hands of a single man or group may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." – James Madison

RESPONSE 6: I am in favor of whatever it takes not to let a 9/11 event take place again on American soil. And, although characterized as "warrantless," I believe the President has, and indeed should have, this authority. We cannot be lulled into complacency by self-serving organizations seeking to enhance individual rights to the detriment of the nation.  Your right to individuality stops when it infringes on my safety. The United States is still a checks and balances/majority-rule country. Our domestic balance is being eroded by concession to misguided checks and I trust the majority will realize this.

 Lucille Borella, Dripping Springs

RESPONSE 7: I concur. Not only warrantless surveillance but more aggressive "Terry" stops as well. Of course it goes without saying that the borders should be armed and any undocumented alien should be rounded up and deported. "A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for the coffin."

RESPONSE 8: Debating this question with my older son, I realized as parents we do the very same thing that the President is "accused" of. As my son grew older I "eavesdropped" on his conversations upon occasion. Did I think he was a bad kid? No, but I DIDN’T KNOW how the other child on the end of that conversation was raised. Did his/her parents teach them to say no to drugs, alcohol, skipping school? Did they realize that stealing from a store was not a kid’s prank? Did their parents teach them to stay away from guns and to never pick one up? I didn’t know. So yes I listened and if a note fell out of his pants while I was washing them I read that too. I upon occasion heard or read something that caused me to find away to talk to my son about a problem or situation that could cause him trouble down the road. Fortunately my extra listening, paying attention and reading a letter or two has allowed me and my husband to raise a young man who will graduate, has a job, has never been involved in drugs, alcohol or skipped school. He understands that anger and bullying can have negative affects on others. He has never seen the inside of a police station nor has he ever been expelled or sent to rehab.

So as parents if (and you have to be honest with yourself about this) you didn’t listen to your kids conversations and just let them try and figure life out all by themselves, would we have more teenagers like the young man in California who was convicted as a terrorist. Remember his parents let him learn about life without interfering.

So listening in on a conversation between a suspected terrorist and another suspected terrorist to protect an entire country possibly more, I don’t have a problem with. Is it legal I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says that "All your conversations are private and we will never listen to them". Yes we expect the right to our privacy but it is not a grantee when it comes to protecting the lives of others. Besides you wouldn’t walk up to a suspect and say, "oh by the way I am going to listen to your calls". I think we worry too much about the rights of those that are terrorists and criminals than we do about the average citizen that would like to live in a safe place. Personally spending my tax money to do this and save a life as compared to burying over 4000 people is better spent.

RESPONSE 9: Let’s be perfectly clear on who authorized the warrantless surveillance of Americans—the President of the United States. I am strongly opposed to the Administration’s continuing arrogant behavior as if the laws of the land don’t apply to them. I don’t believe the President and all those who serve him, even in a time of war, are above the law. I believe that the Administration’s actions since 9-11 have put our basic civil liberties in jeopardy, and I agree completely with Benjamin Franklin’s view that "those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither".

Texas Paralegal Journal © Copyright 2006 by the Paralegal Division, State Bar of Texas.

Top of Page