Essay Sample on FISA: Fighting Terror with Secret Law & Data Access

Introduction

The information gathered by FISA can be used in the criminal trials since they can generate data which was used by the defendant against them. Accessing data from the United States citizens and the non-citizens will help to combat terrorism in the country. FISA generate information from the criminal when they are requested by law since it is unethical to acquire citizens' information without their conscience. This power makes the United States citizens encounter the threat of the secret law enforcement which is put forward by FISA warrants that are provided without the cause that led to criminal activity (Newell, 2014). The cases which require FISA surveillance are those based on national security issues.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

FISA does not adequately protect the United States citizens since the surveillance does not provide either a congressional or judicial oversight to the various users. The monitoring also focused on those who used social media platforms in sharing information thus leaving the individual who did not use these platforms to communicate (Newell, 2014). Due to this reason, FISA surveillance does not offer full protection to the United States Citizens. Section 702 of the constitution states that Agencies are supposed to minimize the sharing and retention of the information obtained from the United States citizens.

The decision for the New York Times is still valid since the press does not incite people to get involved in violence thus limiting the peace of the United States Citizens. Also, if the media does not lead to infringement of the constitutional rights, the opinion by the New York Times tend to remain valid. The New York Times opinionated for the free speech, assembly, and the press thus maintaining the chance for getting involved in the political discussions. The media at times might disseminate information which would lead to incitements to the public. Also, third parties are given the opportunity of publishing data as long as they follow the legalities publishing in the United States (McConnell, 2013). The information which is issued by the press should be legally obtained from society to minimize violations of the law. Therefore, I agree with the decision of the New York Times as long as the legal steps are followed in obtaining and publishing the information.

The media is restricted to public information which is associated with criminal matters such as sexual offense. For example, Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Act restricts the media from publishing the identifying particulars, occupation and the name of the offender or the alleged criminal. Also, during a bail hearing, the press is not allowed to publish the matters which are related to this case. The media is only allowed to post the identity of the defendant who was applying for the case and the charge which are encountered by the defendant - the limitation of publishing the court proceedings end when the jury gives their decision towards the situation. The press tends to be limited to print the proceeding which is related to the family matters - publishing this information end up violating the Section 11B of the Family Court Act of the 1980 (McConnell, 2013). Therefore, the press adheres to these restrictions thus making them avoid fines or being sued by the involved parties.

The cases of Padilla and Hamdi are associated with the unlawful detention of the United States citizens without the issues and trials of how the prison violated the law. The arrest violated the congressional enactment which prohibited the detention of the United States citizens as long as the Congress gives them the mandate. In the case of Padilla, the government was required to present the formal charges which could provide proof to the case. In the case of Hamdi, the government stated that he should be given the opportunity of contesting to the factual basis of the detention before a neutral decision maker. In the case of Padilla, the jury confirmed that the petitions provided in Southern District were inappropriately filed since the criminal had been held in South Carolina (Chemerinsky, 2005). This made Padilla become taken before thee neutral tribunal who determined if Padilla was an unlawful combatant. For both cases, I would request the two cases to be presented before a neutral decision maker since they would provide a well thought out and judgment. Since the two detainees are the United States citizens, they should be allowed to speak their mind before legal actions being taken on them.

Yes, the United States President has the authority detaining the enemy combatants since they pose a threat to the United States citizens and the whole state. Also, the President is the commander in Chief of the army, and this gives him the mandate of providing orders to detain the enemy combatants. The two detainees have the right to being listened to so that they can express themselves (Chemerinsky, 2005). Therefore, giving the detainees an opportunity of being heard by a neutral decision maker will make them feel respected and values as other humans.

References

Chemerinsky, E. (2005). Enemy Combatants and Separation of Powers. J. Nat'l Sec. L. & Poly, 1, 73. Retrieved from https://www.nyclu.org/en/cases/padilla-v-bushhamdi-v-rumsfeld-challenging-detention-us-citizen-without-charges-or-trial

McConnell, M. W. (2013). Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case. Yale LJ, 123, 412. Retrieved from https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/going-to-court/media/rules-and-resources/141110SPPM.pdf

Newell, B. C. (2014). Technopolicing, surveillance, and citizen oversight: A neo-republican theory of liberty and information control. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 421-431. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1474885115608783