Despite having been described as the world’s largest single employer of Ph.D. mathematicians, the owner of the single largest group of supercomputers, and having a budget much larger than that of the CIA, it has had a remarkably low profile until recent years. For a long time its existence was not even acknowledged by the US government. It is often half-jokingly said that “NSA” actually stands for “No Such Agency.” (Wikipedia)

The capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephones, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. (Senator Frank Church)

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were so stunning in intensity and their destruction and aftermath that the Americans as a nation were deeply numbed and could accept any thing if it would ensure that similar attacks wouldn’t occur again. President Bush’s administration took full advantage of the opportunity provided by this tragedy and it went ahead at full steam launching pre-emptive attack on Iraq, enforcing Patriot Act, violating the Geneva Convention to torture detainees (Abu Ghraib and Guantanmo) professedly to obtain information on future terrorist activities, and using National Security Agency (NSA) for eavesdropping and spying on the American citizens at home and abroad, among many other things.

In times of war, a president acquires additional executive powers due to the abnormal circumstances that it creates, to successfully prosecute the war effort. Congress usually acquiesces to such acquisition without making much fuss. Such additional powers are, more often than not, carried beyond the constitutional authority of the president. According to Newsweek (January 9, 2006), “..in times of national peril, Congress gets swept along on a wave of patriotism. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, president did not even bother to get Congress to pass a formal declaration of war.” The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was specifically created to offset a president’s unlimited power like Nixon’s which he had acquired during the Vietnam War through NSA.

NSA was created by President Harry S. Truman in 1952 in absolute secrecy and the objective was to “spy on foreign adversaries” and it “was never supposed to be turned around inward.” The main target of such surveillance was the communist countries. The current furor is due to the surveillance of the American nationals at home; it is due to turning the NSA spying “inward” which it was never supposed to do. According to The New York Times (The Agency That Could be Big Brother, James Bamford, December 25, 2005), “For the agency to snoop domestically on American citizens suspected of having terrorist ties, it first must go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, make a showing of probable cause that the target is linked to a terrorist group, and obtain a warrant.” This describes fairly adequately the legal boundaries within which domestic surveillance and spying is permitted. The administration has however sidestepped this provision and has proceeded with its snooping activities without referring to FISA. This is precisely what Senator Frank Church alluded to and said, “I don’t want this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

President Bush indulged in double-talk to mollify the public reaction against domestic surveillance. He said in 2004, “Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” The court order, as a matter of fact, he never sought for eavesdropping at home.

In the face of increasing criticism, President Bush tried to create a legal space for himself when he said, “FISA is for long-term monitoring. There’s a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring.” Nobody questioned him initially when the nation was still in a state of shock; nobody seems to be buying this narrow differentiation now when people are worried about the likelihood of encroachment into their personal lives by the Big Brother.

There is another reason for the delayed public reaction; people didn’t know about the NSA activities. The recent revelations by The New York Times lifted the lid from the Pandora box and the outrage began. (The Justice Department has authorized an investigation as to who leaked the NSA story to the Times.)

Another contributing cause for concern is the loss of credibility of the administration on several issues. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and many people believe that the administration’s defense that it acted on the information provided to it by the CIA and other overseas secret agencies is shallow and not very convincing. They believe that the administration hyped the whole issue purposely and took the country to war for its own underhand motives and objectives.

Watching the shameful torture pictures of the detainees on television not only disgusted the American public, it also was disillusioned by the degrading tactics used by the administration. The leak story about outing the CIA operative, Valerie Plame, and the consequent indictment of the vice-president’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, further tarnished the administration’s image. People find it hard to believe any defense that the administration puts up for surveillance activities.

In defense of domestic spying, Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said, “This is a limited program. This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up trains, weddings and churches…The president believes that he has the authority – and he does – under the constitution to do this limited program. The Congress has been briefed. It is fully in line with the constitution and also protecting American civil liberties.”

If this were so simple and straightforward, nobody would question it. But, it’s not. Yes, the president has the authority for domestic eavesdropping but it needs to be endorsed by the FISA. The argument that precious time would be lost in going to the court before conducting the surveillance is countered by its opponents by suggesting that, according to legal provisions, the court clearance could be sought from FISA within 72 hours after the fact. Even when such enormous flexibility exists, the administration did not bother to legalize its activities. This is the real bone of contention.

Many tend to believe that the administration has accrued to itself autocratic authority without caring for constitutionality. They contend that “President Bush did not have authority to order eavesdropping by the security agency without warrants.” They argue that the sanctity of constitution is above every thing and should not be violated, even by the president of the United States. Constitution is the backbone of the country.

It is appropriate to conclude with David Isenberg’s observation (Tompaine.com, January 6, 2006), “When we see activity like illegal citizen surveillance in other countries, we usually call them police states.” We pretend to remain untainted by such activities by virtue of the high moral pedestal on which we have planted ourselves.