This Week's Debate: Domestic Surveillance

The founding principle of our great nation is that a government's most fundamental responsibility is to secure the natural rights of the people. Also called inherent or unalienable rights, these include the rights to life, liberty and property.

It is this vital governmental role that is at the crux of the debate over warrantless wiretapping of U.S. persons. Are our natural rights best protected by a strong executive asserting wartime powers (in the absence of a formal declaration of war)? Or are they better protected by a system of checks designed to ensure that no one branch of government violates these rights under the guise of securing them?

Within this framework, we can examine other key questions:

· Where is the line between Fourth Amendment rights and national security?
· When, if ever, is it legitimate for the president to bypass the courts in a matter over which they, by law, have jurisdiction?
· How can we ensure effective oversight of secret government programs?
· What is the best way to ascertain whether these wiretaps were conducted lawfully? A Congressional investigation? A Supreme Court case? (If the latter, what are the possible routes to the Supreme Court?)
· What lessons can we take from past legal challenges to executive power and electronic surveillance?

More peripheral, but nonetheless important, considerations include the role of the press in breaking and covering a story like this, and the effect of political gamesmanship on how it will all play out. Over the coming week, we'll talk more about the decision by the New York Times to publish the story when it did, and we'll try to separate partisan political attacks from legitimate concerns for natural rights and for national security.

For the facts providing the basis for this debate, see the earlier post. And if you have another subject you want to write about for The Debate, don't wait another minute -- just click here.

By Emily Messner | December 30, 2005; 11:09 AM ET | Category: This Week's Issue
Previous: Judicial Interference Justification Doesn't Hold Water | Main Index | Next: WWFFD? Another Perspective on Surveillance