The next time Rami Toqan dials home to the United Arab Emirates, he knows his father might not be the only one listening.
“When I talk to my family, we try not to talk much about politics because we know the government could be monitoring us,” said Toqan, a Weinberg sophomore.
Like other students with family in the Middle East, Toqan long harbored vague concerns about the privacy of his international conversations. The New York Times confirmed his suspicions when it reported in December that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to intercept calls between American citizens and terrorism suspects overseas without obtaining warrants.
If the wiretapping program is having a chilling effect on Middle Eastern students’ communications, it is having an even broader impact on a centuries-old debate over how to balance liberty and security in wartime. The Supreme Court has defended the president’s right to meet national security challenges as commander in chief since the Civil War. But many civil liberties groups worry that with improved information technology and an amorphous terrorist threat, the Bush administration is pushing for unfettered federal power.
Northwestern law Prof. John McGinnis said what is surprising about the current eavesdropping controversy isn’t the eavesdropping itself – it’s the controversy.
“These kind of war powers aren’t anything the Bush administration has dreamed up,” McGinnis said. “The associate attorney general of the Clinton administration (John Schmidt) said they were doing similar things.”
McGinnis referred to an op-ed article in the Chicago Tribune in which Schmidt called President Bush’s domestic surveillance “consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.”
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the NSA about a week ago, claiming the agency’s eavesdropping program infringes on citizens’ rights. Polls indicate that Americans are divided over the president’s program.
Some students said they think the debate is more about politics than legitimate concerns over privacy.
“People should value rights, but people also value the right to not be killed by a terrorist,” said Medill junior Guy Benson.
“These critics are the same people who heard the 9/11 commission saying the government didn’t do enough to connect the dots before the attack. Now the Bush administration is taking steps to make sure 9/11 doesn’t happen again,” he said.
Some students don’t buy the argument that the inherent powers of the commander in chief justify the president’s program. Weinberg freshman Max Fletcher said Bush is purposely circumventing laws on domestic spying.
“What’s troubling is there was already a law,” Fletcher said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a 1978 law establishing the procedure for eavesdropping on suspected agents of foreign powers.
“I know a lot of people in my church are involved in peace movements, and it’s a troubling idea that if they go to a park to pass out literature, they can be spied on and harassed,” Fletcher said.
Other students say the president broke the law, plain and simple.
“He is absolutely overstepping his limits,” said Omar Hasan, a Weinberg senior. “If you look at this administration, they have done everything they can to continuously violate and minimize our civil liberties, and it’s really appalling as a citizen and especially concerning as a Muslim.”
Although Toqan said he disagrees with the Bush administration, he said he understands the government has a responsibility to protect the country – even if that means monitoring Americans’ calls.
“You just have to be more cautious in terms of what you say,” Toqan said, “but if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t be afraid. If the government hears about my weekends or how exams went, I don’t really care.”
Reach Derek Thompson at
