The New York Times published an article in December revealing the National Security Agency's secret wiretapping program. As a result the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit against the United States government, and the Bush administration wants to bring charges against the Times and force reporters to reveal their sources.
The domestic spying program, approved by President George W. Bush months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, allows the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans suspected of having a connection to terrorist activity.
However, the program has been subject to recent criticism due to the fact that it was issued without having the approved warrants necessary for domestic spying.
Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, stated in an e-mail message that the Times first published an article revealing the secret wiretapping program last December, but had known about it since 2004.
"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security," he said.
Despite the decision not to immediately release the story, the Times continued covering the domestic spying program, Keller said. Two things occurred that convinced the newspaper to run the story last December.
"First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood," he said. "Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program, by withholding a number of technical details, in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."
After a significant amount of work went into the story, the Times published it because there was "no good reason not to publish the article," Keller said.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero stated in a press release the ACLU is filing suit against the U.S. government, claiming the program violates the First and Fourth Amendments.
"President Bush and his surrogates can justify this program all they want, but they cannot change the underlying fact that it remains an illegal program," he said. "Our nation was founded upon the principles of checks and balances and a respect for the rule of law. The continued approval for this unlawful program undermines the very freedoms and values that define America."
Senior Melissa Csengeto said she finds it nerve-wracking that basic rights could be in jeopardy.
"It scares me that the rights we take for granted could be so easily violated without, what most Americans would consider, proper procedures," Csengeto said.
Rep. Michael N. Castle, R-Del., stated in an e-mail message that after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, it was agreed upon that the United States' current method of monitoring terrorists needed improvement - Congress worked to ensure that everything possible was done to protect the American people.
"We can all agree that the terrorist attacks in 2001 made us realize we were fighting a different kind of war, he said. However, safeguards continue to be necessary to prevent the abuse of executive power. I feel strongly that the disclosure of classified information is a serious matter. I believe Congress needs to thoroughly review the National Security Agency's surveillance program."
Junior Joaquin Cabrera said he agreed the current state of American foreign policy causes the NSA program to be a touchy issue.
"We're in a state of national emergency," Cabrera said. "I don't think anyone is abusing their power. While I don't think the program is 100 percent necessary, I do believe that Bush is just trying to keep the country safe."
The administration wants to bring charges against the newspaper and force the reporters, Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau, to reveal their sources.
Csengeto said she does not think the Times reporters should release the names of their sources.
"Attacking reporters and source confidentiality isn't an effective way for the government to stop the presses, and it certainly isn't an effective way to prevent inside source leaks from occurring in the first place," she said.
Cabrera said he thinks the reporters should be required to reveal their sources.
"I think in this instance the newspaper has over-stepped their boundaries by releasing secret information and then hiding the sources," he said. "The New York Times likes to find things that rattle the cage and then don't step up to face the consequences."
Keller continues to stand by the publishing of the article and the protection of the anonymous sources.
It is public information that the government can eavesdrop on individuals suspected of terrorist connections and the NSA can monitor communications in the United States as long as there is a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, he said.
"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant," Keller said. "It is that expansion of authority, not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation, that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article."
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our feed
Contact us through email
Be the first to comment on this article!