national security agency access

As we further read chapter 12 we learn in greater depth of the presidents of the United States and their roles. We learn the roles of the president are very different and ultimately more complex than the roles of the president pre-twentieth century. As a result of the Great Depression, industrialization, bigger businesses, and two world wars we learned the president was relied more on as the economy expanded and progressed. We learn how the role of technology has influenced the president and how he goes about things. Presidents are the head of their political party and have different roles like the chief of state, domestic policymaking leader, chief executive, and military and foreign policy leader. Because of how complex their responsibilities and roles are the president has a strong support system with many people who specialize in certain areas to inform the president on specific subjects and criteria to help him make better decisions.

Article II section 2 of the constitution stating the president is the commander in chief differs from Article I section 8 stating Congress has the power to declare war. The president was given the power to protect the United States from invasions or rebellions but Congress was given the power to decide to go to war or not with another country. This has changed dramatically as the last war Congress has declared was World War II. Presidents have used military power without Congress as a result of threats such as communism, drug trafficking, terrorism and nationalist threats to American economic interests. Previous presidents have sent military forces to Korea, Vietnam, Grenada and Nicaragua, Panama, Kuwait, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Pakistani border, Somalia, and Yemen where they have not notified Congress in regards to declaring a war.

Although past presidents have not called on Congress to declare wars in any of the previously stated foreign nations presidents do work with Congress and other government leaders to come to conclusions on what to do in circumstances. They often reach resolutions that let presidents use the armed forces to protect the national security of the United States yet they are not legally bound to do it. Some presidents have admitted that the commander in chief powers allowed them to take steps that violate the liberties of Americans if those actions were required to protect the country. As a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 president George W. Bush authorized more national security which included technological eavesdropping by the NSA to find potential terrorists and other threats. Edward Snowden was a former NSA contractor and revealed many governmental secrets to the public which exposed to the public how much access governmental agencies have to our lives. As a result of this other countries also found out about the government agencies and their doings which ruined some of the relationships with other countries. It is absurd to think about how much access the government can have to our private lives if they wanted to. Although I think it is extremely wrong and unethical for the government to be able to see everyone and their profiles I think it is necessary and important to help keep this country where it is at in order prevent any harm and potential threats to the citizens of this country.

8 Responses to "national security agency access"

Declan Horrigan says:

November 28, 2017 at 4:06 pm

I think you made many good points throughout your post, I would like to focus on your comments surrounding the implementation of the surveillance programs by George Bush. Given that the chapter was about the modern president, this topic is very interesting and intriguing because the surveillance that has occurred and is occurring, is only possible because of the advanced technology that we have today. This would never have even been a discussion 40 years ago because the surveillance would have been impossible due to the lack of the technology to accomplish it. However, granted that now it is more than possible and is actually being implemented, the discussion of whether or not the president was correct to engage in this policy or not must be had. I believe, that in the modern day, with all of the advanced technology that terrorists are using, it is only fair for the U.S. government to use advanced technology in order to combat the threat of terrorism. According to an article in the Washington Post in 2008, the program called for “allowing the NSA to monitor communications between the United States and foreign countries without court oversight when a party is believed to be linked to al-Qaeda.” I don’t see anything wrong with this and I doubt many other people would. In the end, if this was all that the government did and was simply doing it for the protection of its citizens it would be a great program. However, what the government was actually doing was not nearly congruent to what they said they were doing and even more importantly to what the citizens of the United States believed was going on. Many people’s daily lives were invaded on and their privacy breached through this surveillance. I think some of the most important characteristics of a president, as we discussed in class, are transparency and trustworthiness. The president and American government as a whole violated the trust of the American people, and this is not okay. Whether you are modern president or a past president, this should not stand.
Grace Miller says:

November 28, 2017 at 9:44 pm

I’d like to comment on the part of your post discussing the difference between Congress’ declaration of war, and the president’s title Commander in Chief. I recently attended a lecture by Tim Kaine where he brought up this issue, but instead of discussing it in the conventional tone where we blame the president for overstepping, he blamed Congress for a lack of action. It’s no secret that declaring war, especially one where we are unsure the outcome will be favorable, does not help popularity ratings. It’s not illogical to believe that it’s possible that Congress itself is avoiding a declaration of war for fear that when it comes times for re-election, their constituents will vote them out for supporting a war where their sons and daughters were sent overseas to fight. I do agree that the office of the presidency has stretched the powers of Commander and Chief quite far, but I don’t think it’s entirely the doing of the president, but instead a side effect of Congress’ lack of risky decision making to keep their popularity ratings high among constituents.

To address your thoughts on the NSA, I too am not entirely sure where I stand. The balance between privacy and safety of our citizens seems to be a very blurry line that someone desperately needs to establish. I do think that in the next decade we as American citizens should continue to watch Edward Snowden’s case carefully. Although Russia seems fine with extending his asylum, I believe at some point there has to be a trial for Snowden on American soil. If Snowden figures out a way to ensure this trial’s publicity, and allow for the proceedings to be as transparent as possible, the American people should start seeing a more definitive line between our rights to privacy and our government’s duty to protect us arising.
Jackson Puckey says:

November 28, 2017 at 10:01 pm

The scope of presidential war powers is deeply complicated. As you mentioned, Congress is given the authority to declare wars which is in direct conflict with the idea of the President as the head of the military and commander-in-chief. While the idea that every war or military action we have been involved in since 1945 is technically not a “war” is a bit strange and may sound unconstitutional, it is far more complicated than that. While the position of “commander-in-chief” was originally designed to refer to military strategy, positioning, and movements, the title has been adapted, out of necessity, to include the right to attack regions in police actions. Prior to 1945, U.S foreign policy was generally marked by periods of imperialism and isolationism. Aside from World War I, every U.S war since the Revolution has been directly related to the acquisition of territory (Mexican and Spanish) or the protection of the country (1812). In this way, the government generally allocates massive amounts of resources to the conflict in an effort to create a successful outcome. This generally results in the diversion of massive amounts of spending from other government programs, such as entitlement programs and other essential services. The main reason that the United States has only ever declared war for 5 wars (on 10 different countries) is that its other military challengers have not required the full force of the United States governments. The Revolutionary War was not declared as the United States did not exist in any real sense to declare an actual war. In terms of conflicts with Native Americans, they were authorized in much the same way as the Civil War, with the native americans and the southerners being treated as insurgent groups rather than independent states. The Native American tribes were considered sovereign by the U.S, but they were not recognized by any country as an actual state, excluding them from early laws of war. As for modern warfare, the United States has never fully required the mobilization of the entire country, and thus the President has tended to declare military actions funded by Congress, though they are not called wars for political reasons. Before 1991, these reasons were based on the Cold War. Many of the conflicts in which the U.S involved itself were against Communist states, revolutionary socialist insurgencies, or allies of the USSR. While the USSR tended to intervene on the opposing side, it would be diplomatically impossible for either side to formally declare war.
Lilly Alemayehu says:

November 29, 2017 at 4:19 pm

I have definitely considered this issue in the past. It is difficult to draw the line between having a good amount of privacy and also being safe from security threats. As Americans, we definitely value our rights to privacy but I do think some trade-offs are necessary in order to continue protecting the security of the nation. I think this will also be constantly in question when technology and things like artificial intelligence start being more incorporated into the rights of people. I wonder to what extent people will be willing to give up their privacy for convenience and security. The government’s role in this will be contested greatly in the next few years I think. For example, there’s the issue with net neutrality and to what extent it should continue to be preserved. Also, the hacking of Equifax a few months ago is another example of how securitization definitely has its shortcomings, especially in this digital age.
Montgomery Thornburn says:

November 29, 2017 at 7:37 pm

It is definitely a scary thought that a faceless government is watching our every move. I recently watched a short documentary that touched on some of the programs increased and developed after 9/11 that were designed with the intentions to keep Americans safe. Unfortunately we have seen an abuse of power by many government agencies like the NSA since they have been given more funding and power. While some argue that the a right to privacy is implied by the 4th amendment which bans search and seizure of property without a warrant, the truth is we currently have no right. I personally think that a clear right to privacy is a critical liberty that we sacrifice for our security. I believe it will take a major leak of personal information for a change to occur. Until we have a reason to stop the government from watching everything we do, we probably won’t do anything. As technology develops the government will be able to know about our day to day lives even more than they do now. A gradual increase in government over watch will not be met with aggression by the American people the way a sudden change in law would be. If the American people want to put their liberty over their security then change needs to happen sooner rather than later.
Reid Chenault says:

November 29, 2017 at 8:47 pm

I think this post touches on a topic that was one of the most popular issues in America at the time it took place. The events with Edward Snowden created a sense of violation among many Americans because of the lack of privacy the government was providing. In my mind, this made the President’s life, at the time of these events, very difficult because he had to deal with the American citizens and the other countries who were not accepting of the news they had heard. The idea to bend the rules a little and invade people’s privacy was a good decision, in my opinion. The government does not focus on the innocent crimes that are talked about through technology, however if they see something that could threaten the lives of Americans they are able to act quickly. I think this is important because the world we live in today has people that want to do harm to others for no reason. People who argue that it is an unconstitutional act do have a very strong, valid argument; however, I believe that the safety of this country out-weighs any privacy rights that we have.
Allison McLaughlin says:

November 29, 2017 at 9:16 pm

I definitely agree that it is very scary that the government has the ability to access all of our information that we presume to be private without us ever knowing. However, I do think that Snowden’s actions were extremely dangerous and irresponsible, and I think he did something potentially very harmful to Americans out of personal anger. The government’s use of cyber security is an extremely difficult issue to come to answer on, as both sides have very valid points. Also, when the safety of American citizens is at stake, it is hard to find a good balance of what to do. The side in favor of the use of widespread cyber security would argue that all of the information gathered is simply stored in a database and is never pulled and looked at by the government unless it contains something suspicious, so for the vast majority of Americans, their information is never inspected. The other side, which I personally agree with more, would argue that even if their information is never directly inspected, it is still extremely frightening to know that the government is in control of our private interactions. This is especially true because the government has proved in the past to be corrupt and to mislead Americans on their true actions and intentions, so I do not think it is right for the government to have access to all of our technological information for use at their own discretion. Further, the government has found barely any important information regarding to terrorism through widespread cyber security.
Yanbin Zhang says:

November 29, 2017 at 10:33 pm

I am still very impressive how it shocked the whole world the releasing of NSA by Snowden. It has raised discussion about the government’s access to everyone’s daily life in many of countries. According to the documents released by Snowden, it’s is astonished that the NSA is capable and pretty easy to get your personal information from your account on social media, bank and any other possible resource, they could even get to know what you have done day to day. Under such strong technology of NSA, there is no room for secrets and privacies.

One big issues ignored by the public before now come to in front of them. The first one is the potential threat from their own government agencies. Having such strong cyber power is indeed beneficial to national security, it would provide strong support when the citizens are under threat of any military attack, terrorism, economic or political conflict with other countries. The NSA could inform related government agencies to take action prior to the crisis. It is even beneficial to the normal activities of government. According to the released documents, NSA obtained the outline of discussion between Obama and the UN secretary Ban Ki-moon one day before they meet with each other. It created one day time for white house to prepare proper reply and outline for then president Obama for his discussion in the next day. However, behind all the benefits of the cyberpower of NSA, there is one big risk. Stated by an anonymous former officers from NSA, the regulation and supervision has much behind of the technology now, which means, such technology been used to study the foreign enemies or allies could be targeted to the public, and there is now effective regulation to prevent it happen. More importantly, normal people has no any means to protect their privacy against the national institution. I believe that the original idea of the NSA is to protect the country and assist the president doing his job. But if it becomes too powerful beyond the supervision and control by president and the government. It could be a potential enemy to its own people. So when we talk about the power of president to run and supervise the government. It’s so crucial for us the keep track of the new theme of different period. At the era of internet, the highly developed cyberpower is a powerful weapon for a country to defend its own interests. But if it lacks certain regulation and rules, it would be harmful for the government and for the people.

Comments are closed.