Sunshine Week Home Page » Sunshine Week and Sunshine Campaign Toolkit »

Chris Fetterman

Published: March 09, 2008
Last Updated: March 09, 2008

Note: In honor of Sunshine Week, the Bloomsburg University Andruss Library Government Documents Unit held a student essay contest. The winning essay in the college category is below, and may be used by any newspaper during Sunshine Week.

There has been much debate over whether The New York Times should have revealed the U.S. government's secret wiretapping of phone calls without warrants. Critics say the program was a vital part of the country's anti-terrorism effort and that the newspaper undermined that effort by revealing it. Proponents of the articles say the newspaper revealed an improper and possibly illegal intrusion on Americans' privacy. Should the government be able to listen in on phone calls without a warrant? Should we have been told about the program, or could that be considered "helping the terrorists?" Please address both questions in your essay.

By Chris Fetterman

On Dec. 16, 2005, The New York Times published an article which shed light on the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. Immediately following the publication, there were numerous outcries from political pundits on both sides of the spectrum.

The harshest outcries came from conservatives, such as author Ann Coulter and San Francisco radio host Melanie Morgan, who called for the editor of The New York Times, Bill Keller, to be tried for treason and when found guilty, executed. The consensus among proponents of the warrantless wiretapping program was that by exposing the program, The New York Times aided terrorists, who now knew that communications into and out of the United States were being monitored. President Bush stated that "the fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Not only is the program illegal, it is an embarrassment to the United States and the concept of democracy.

The warrantless wiretapping program was conducted for four years before The New York Times published the article exposing the program. Members of the Bush administration point to a resolution passed by Congress, the Authorization to Use Military Force, as the basis for the illegal wiretapping. One week after Sept. 11, 2001, Congress passed the resolution authorizing President Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the United States from future attacks. President Bush felt necessary and appropriate force included authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor all communication that may involve terrorism coming into or going out of the United States without first securing a warrant.

The problem with interpreting the resolution as authorizing the president to illegally listen to any citizen's communication lies in the fact that it violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA, passed in 1978, regulates how governmental agencies may carry out physical searches and electronic surveillance. According to FISA, it is illegal for governmental agencies to monitor the communications of American citizens without securing a warrant.

The argument made by the Bush administration that FISA would impede time sensitive surveillance by requiring a warrant does not hold ground. FISA allows for situations in which speed is essential by permitting surveillance without a warrant for up to three days while a warrant can be secured.

The Bush administration has also used the argument that by labeling him the "commander in chief," the Constitution grants the president the authority to do whatever he deems necessary. While President Bush is the commander in chief of the armed forces, he does not have the authority to do something Congress has already said he cannot, as in the case with FISA and warrantless wiretaps. For the president to disregard this fact would be to throw out the system of checks and balances our founding fathers realized was imperative to a proper democracy.

The idea that reporting on the program is considered "helping the terrorists" is another step in a frightening trend in which our country attempts to limit freedom of speech and expression that does not agree with the policies of the Bush administration.

Since Sept. 11, the administration has attempted to silence any dissent toward its policies. This has been furthered by President Bush’s proclamation that "You're either with us or against us in the war on terror." Anyone questioning an action of the Bush administration, such as the illegal wiretapping program, is immediately branded as a traitor or terrorist sympathizer.

Contrary to what the Bush administration believes, it is not unpatriotic to question the government. As the fourth estate, The New York Times stood up in the face of tyranny and did the right thing by exposing the illegal wiretapping program, as it has in the past concerning the Pentagon Papers.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." A free press which can investigate and report on the actions of its government is essential to a democracy, and by exposing the illegal wiretapping program, The New York Times has upheld the ideals our country fights for overseas.

Fetterman, from Lehighton, Pa., is a Bloomsburg University political science and mass communications major