1. Knutson 1
Joshua Knutson
English 101
Professor Bolton
April 10, 2012
The Security Era: Technological Abuses and the War on Terror
In September of 2001, an event took place in this country that forever changed the way
that we thought about national security. The attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
called in to sharp focus the failures of the antiquated security apparatus in the United States.
There immediately followed, in addition to several wars, a complete overhaul of the national
security network. This overhaul necessitated a number of new technologies, both military and
civilian; it also kicked off a whole new debate about civil liberties in the United States. The
question then became how much security is too much security. Was it proper to use military
technology to spy on citizens without court approval, and based on nothing more than suspicion?
This question was brought out with the advent of “national security letters.” Was it proper to
compile computerized data sheets on citizens when they had not committed a crime, and to allow
access of these files through the internet to other government agencies? This is exactly what the
Federal Bureau of Investigation began doing when they created an FBI National Security
Division, and they were not the only government agency to do so. While it is true that national
security concerns are paramount for ensuring the continued enjoyment of constitutional
protections in the United States, how many can be infringed upon in order to ensure that
protection? The government is already using technology developed for military signal
intelligence to intercept phone calls in the United States. Although national security is a matter
of the utmost importance in the United States, it should never be used as justification to abuse the

2. Knutson 2
very technology meant to protect the citizens of the United States, and it should never be used
against the citizens without proof of criminal activities.
For two decades prior to the attacks of September 11th, the surveillance efforts of the
United States were governed by a single piece of legislation. The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 was the defining mission statement of the intelligence
community. It listed the proper conditions needed to initiate surveillance of anyone, in or out of
the borders of the United States. The FISA Act gave the government the ability to intercept
radio and satellite transmissions, as well as wire transmissions, so long as they emanated from
outside of the borders of the United States. The government was required to get warrants for any
other type of interception, especially if it was a communication that was going to be intercepted
in the United States. The act also forced the intelligence and security communities to submit any
actions they took to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISC, as it was known,
was responsible for determining the legality of any surveillance operation. However, by the time
of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it was severely outdated in the face of new technologies. There
followed a period of unrestricted action by the various security agencies. Once the order came
down from the White House that national security concerns superseded outdated statutes, the
door was kicked open for warrantless wiretaps. The major issue developed due to the fact that
these wiretaps were monitoring communications into and out of the United States. Many people
have defended this practice as necessary for prevention of terrorist plots. As former federal
prosecutor Andrew McCarthy shows, “[this program] has saved lives, helping break up at least
one al-Qaeda conspiracy to attack New York City and Washington, DC” (McCarthy 365). In
bringing up the successes that the security agencies have had, McCarthy raises more questions
than he answers. Yes, a terror plot was foiled, but this information was based on warrantless

3. Knutson 3
wiretaps; therefore, the information was inadmissible in an American court. The information
could not be used because it was irreconcilable with Constitutional protections against illegal
search and seizure. Al Gore summarizes this principal when he says, “[I do not agree with
President Bush] that we have to break the law or sacrifice our system of government to protect
Americans from terrorism. In fact, doing so makes us weaker and more vulnerable” (Gore 373).
Abuse of technology, even with the best of intentions, is nothing more than modern abuse of
power. A legitimate government cannot break its own laws in the quest to protect its citizens,
because that itself hurts the citizens. It sets a precedent for a vicious circle of civil liberty abuse.
This issue brings into focus the next major incursion on the citizens by the government.
It comes in the form of the Protect America Act. This act authorizes the government to
“intercept any communications that begin or end in a foreign country” (Huq 83). The
government is allowed to do this under very little accountability. The National Security Agency
only has to “reasonably [believe a target] to be located outside of the United States” (Huq 87).
These communications, as they are referred to, are not limited to phone calls. They can be phone
calls, emails, text messages, or even satellite transmissions. The problem with this act is that as
long as the NSA “reasonably” believes the person is not in the US, they can pirate the
transmission. This allows warrantless interception of any type of communication that goes to the
US from a foreign country or a communication that goes from the US to a foreign country, and
that is an infringement on civil liberties. With that said, it is true that there is some oversight
with this act. Some of the actions do have to be submitted to the FISC court, which was
established by the FISA law. However, this oversight is mostly theoretical. The law only
requires reporting on issues of non-compliance, and the decision of what constitutes non-
compliance is left up to the NSA and the Department of Justice. While I fully support the aim of

4. Knutson 4
this act, which primarily was to update the FISA and aid in the War on Terror, it seems obvious
that it does not sufficiently protect the civil liberties of US citizens.
Furthermore, with the admission that wiretapping was occurring without warrants, a
number of other revelations were revealed by the government. It soon became clear that the
government was compiling information on citizens they considered suspicious. This information
was then shared between government agencies, and, in many cases, foreign allies. With the
creation of the Department of Homeland Security, electronic databases became the norm with
national security profiling. This technology was developed by, and borrowed from, the
Pentagon. The idea of effortless information sharing was the brainchild of Army leadership, to
whom it had always been an article of faith that the winner of the reconnaissance battle was the
winner of the war. Homeland Security took this principal and propelled it to new heights. With
authorization from the Patriot Act, the government forced telephone companies to “surrender
databases of telephone calls of US citizens” (Mullard 5). An interesting article by Barton
Gellman appeared in the Washington Post, and it clearly shows what this information was used
for. These databases were then used to profile citizens who had inordinate amounts of oversea
calls to areas of interest. Those citizens were then subjected to a deep background check by the
Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. If they were felt to have
gotten a “hit”, then they were set up on electronic surveillance by various government agencies.
Another legacy of the Patriot Act is the so-called National Security Letters. These are
documents that the FBI uses as a warrant, even though they have no actual legal standing. These
letters force the receiver to divulge information to the government, and impose a gag order on
the receiver, under threat of being charged with interference in a national security investigation.
This represents the dichotomy a government has to present when faced with a terrorist threat.

5. Knutson 5
Those actions clearly threaten the civil liberties of US citizens. However, the Patriot Act has not
been completely negative. As former President George W. Bush says, “the Patriot Act closed
dangerous gaps in America‟s law enforcement and intelligence capabilities” (Bush 12). This act
has helped to protect America from terrorists. I fully agree with President Bush there. However,
once again, this presents a law that does positive things, but does not fully address civil liberty
concerns for US citizens.
Additionally, propaganda, via mass media, must be considered. Propaganda has its roots
deep in military history. For centuries, military schools have taught their students that winning
the war is much easier if the heart of the population is not behind the effort. Today, that
principle is even more obvious. Propaganda from the government is augmented by the mass
media. The media enters the world through the internet, television, print, and even cell phone. It
is nearly impossible to ignore the influence that mass media wields by way of technology. But
that technology is being abused. By controlling the information released to the mass media
outlets, the government controls and shapes the reaction of the population. There have been
numerous examples in the last ten years. Originally, the intelligence reports said that Osama bin
Laden was hiding in Afghanistan. While that may have been true in the beginning, the
government never released information contrary to that until we illegally violated Pakistani
sovereignty in the operation that killed bin Laden. Another example would be the insistence of
the Bush administration in regards to Iraq‟s weapons of mass destruction. In the end, it was
proven that they did not exist. However, the media spent endless amounts of time trying to
prove that they did exist. The author Michael Freeman makes a very interesting point when he
points out that “emergency powers directed at terrorism are particularly likely to be abused”
(38). That is the case today. While ordinarily the media would ruthlessly investigate a reticent

6. Knutson 6
administration, the media over the last ten years has not been nearly as vociferous. They still go
on the attack, but it is not until well after the fact, and it has not resulted in any action to prevent
the government from continuing its misleading ways. It could be argued that a lack of media
coverage may not be a completely bad thing. It is true that the extensive media coverage of
combat operations in Vietnam largely destroyed America‟s motivation to see the war through to
conclusion. It could even be said that the government has to keep some things secret in order to
function. With that said, the citizens of the United States have a right to know about issues that
affect their liberties. The citizens of this country also have a right to know when technology is
being used against them.
While there are many positives to technology, there are also negatives. There is no
person or organization in the world that is immune to the two-edged sword of technology. What
is overwhelmingly obvious in the United States is the abuse of some forms of technology in
support of the war on terrorism. While most of the intentions have been good, there have been
undeniable incursions on the civil liberties the citizens of this country are guaranteed. In
fairness, it must be remembered why these things have taken place. September 11th marks a day
when the largest terrorist-caused loss of life in America happened. America must never forget
that. America must never forget the thousands of military personnel who have laid down their
lives to protect the citizens of this country since that day. What America must do is ensure that
the government is held accountable for formulating laws and practices that protect the citizens
without violating the principles of the country the laws are intended to protect. America must
ensure that technology is used in a proper way. It is imperative that governmental use of
technology is regulated and aimed at the proper targets, not law abiding citizens. Security is a
necessity, but civil liberties are of equal importance.

7. Knutson 7
Works Cited
Bush, George. “Americans‟ Civil Liberties Are Protected.” Civil Liberties. Ed. Lauri Friedman.
Detroit: Gale, Cengage Learning, 2010. 12-18. Print.
Freeman, Michael. Freedom or Security: The Consequences for Democracies Using Emergency
Powers to Fight Terror. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2003. Print.
Gellman, Barton. “The FBI‟s Secret Scrutiny.” Washington Post 6 November 2005: n. pag.
SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.
Gore, Al. “Restoring the Rule of Law.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues. 16th
ed. Eds. George McKenna and Stanley Feingold. New York: McGraw-Hills Company,
2010. 371-376. Print.
Huq, Aziz. “The Protect America Act is a Threat to Civil Liberties.” National Security. Detroit:
Gale, Cengage Learning, 2008. 83-89. Print.
McCarthy, Andrew. “How to „Connect the Dots.‟” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political
Issues. 16th ed. Eds. George McKenna and Stanley Feingold. New York: McGraw-Hills
Company, 2010. 365-370. Print.
Mullard, Maurice. Globalisation, Citizenship and the War on Terror. Northampton: Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited, 2007. Print.