Freewrite:
"In a national broadcast exclusive, we speak with Thomas Tamm, the former U.S. Justice Department attorney who helped expose the Bush administration’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping program that intercepted private email messages and phone calls of U.S. residents without a court warrant. On Tuesday, news broke that the Justice Department dropped its long-running criminal investigation of Tamm. The relatively quiet end to the investigation into Tamm’s warrantless wiretapping leak marks a sharp contrast to the controversy his information generated during the second half of the Bush administration about whether the government had overstepped its legal authority in response to the 9/11 terror attacks." See http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/28/doj_drops_probe_of_whistleblower_who
What is the argument here? What are its implications re: privacy? What type of claim is it: policy, value, fact?
Give your thoughts on the issue. Is it moral or ethical to spy on citizens? When is this plausible, if ever?
2. Classical essay presentations.
3. The Toulmin essay form.
4. Homework.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Andre Tom
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sabir
English 5
4/28/11
The argument is whether warrantless eavesdropping is illegal and unethical. This is mainly backed by the fact that this act is unconstitutional; destroying the very fibers this country is built upon. Simply because the president does it does not mean it becomes legal.
It is highly unethical to do this, seeing as it is a violation of the First Amendment. This is also implausible, again, because of the Constitution. If our government is liable to turn to wire tapping in times of trouble, whats to stop them from doing it anytime they want?
Sophia De Claro
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sabir
English
28 April 2011
Arguement: Legality of government wireless eavesdropping.
Tom said it was illegal, unconstitionalviolation of ForeignIntelligence Surveillance. Many victims were still not notified.
I do not believe it was moral. It just shows there is no real privacy in this world. You can be watched your every move if the government things you are suspicious.
Dennis Foley
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sabir
English 5
April 28th 2011
DOJ drops probe of whistleblower Thomas Tamm
Thomas Tamm discovered illegal activity when the DOJ was spying on American Citizens. This spying was not warranted and is by the constitution considered Illegal. This spying was said to be for what is considered as national security. However they still broke laws of the constitution. However unmoral this may be, spying in many cases is considered constitutional. The government simply needed to get a warrant for this spying and then it would have been completely legal. Spying although it may not be moral to all it is constitutional. Living in a large society, such as America, is going to unfortunately have implications on personal privacy. However it is necessary for the government to follow strict policy because the policy creates the most balance of moral and law.
Andrea Giang
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sabir
English 5
28 April 2011
The argument in the video on Democracy Now is whether wiretapping people without a court warrant is legal or a violation of people’s privacy. Thomas Tamm believed that people have the right to know that they are being eavesdropped on. However, the government believed that he was broke the law by revealing government secrets. This is both fact and policy. What the government and Thomas Tamm did are facts because they did do that particular action. People’s right to privacy is a part of the government’s policy.
I don’t think that it is moral to spy on people without probable cause. I feel that this would be an invasion of people’s privacy. However, if the government does have evidence that leads them to believe that certain people are a threat to national security, then I believe that there can be exceptions. I feel that if a lot of lives are at risk, then it might be good enough reason to listen in on people. But only if there is solid evidence to support that belief.
Ricarda Lathrop
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sabir
English 5
30 April 2011
In the video on democracynow.org, Thomas Tamm, the former US Justice Department attorney, talks about the warrant less eavesdropping during the Bush administration. The argument is if it is legal or an invasion of privacy to wiretap people without a court warrant and without any notification. Thomas Tamm criticizes those actions of the Bush administration and says that it is unethical to claim the right of spying on people without their knowledge. Tamm’s accusations are based on facts even though the government thinks he overstepped the boundaries of privacy within US policies. On the other hand this case raises the question: if the government did not overstepped its own policies by eavesdropping without a warrant?
Personally I think that there is an ethical side and an unethical side about spying on citizens. I do think that it is highly unethical to spy on citizens without them knowing about it or without knowing what the government will do with our information. However, I am convinced that there are situations when the government should be able to eavesdrop on people. Of course there needs to be strict regulations such as a warrant and a reasonable suspicion of a threat in order to invade somebody’s privacy. I think that if there is a strong reason to consider somebody a threat it is almost the government’s responsibility to take care of this case before this person can do harm; and therefore will invade the privacy of hundreds of other people. Even though, I think that it is ok to spy on citizens under certain regulations and with the need of a reasonable suspicion, I also can see that it is hard to define who and what is a threat and where to draw the line between privacy and national security.
Frena Zamudio
ReplyDeleteProfessor Sabir
English 5
28 April 2011
Freewrite: DOJ drops probe of whistleblower Thomas Tamm
Thomas Tamm, former DOJ personnel discovered an illegal activity while spying American people. This spying/wire-taping is considered illegal based on the United States Constitution. The government needs to have a warrant or some kind of a legal proof in order to listen or go through people’s files. It is considered violation people’s rights and privacy with their own things. Tamm also believes that people have the right to know if they are being eavesdropped on, the government however thinks that Tamm’s revelation about the government secret is illegal and he then broke a law. His revelations are backed up with facts although the government officials think that he went over his business’ boundaries.
I personally think that it is immoral when the government listens to people’s conversation without their consent. This is a free country, people have their own rights, and I do not think the government should take people’s privacy like that. They should at least warn them or something. I do not think they should consider wire tapping as a legal and useful proof during a case hiring, because of the technology now, a lot of things can get mixed up or change if we want to. So, I personally think wire tapping is immoral and not reliable for the government to use against their own people.