NSA's Phone and Internet Surveillance - Coursework Example

Running Header: NSA PHONE AND INTERNET SURVEILLANCE NSA Phone and Internet Surveillance: A Critical Issue Attempting to Balance Security, Liberty andHuman Rights BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE DATE HERE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In today’s American society, there have been significant powers granted to the executive branch of the country’s government to engage in phone and Internet surveillance of private American citizens. After the events of September 11, 2001 and the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building enacted by domestic citizens, the establishment of the Patriot Act and the PRISM program (an Internet surveillance program) were designed to increase responsiveness, recognition and the ability to combat terrorist activities in the country. The government has, since 2001, collected countless data on phone activities and Internet discussions of private citizens in an effort to identify and isolate individuals suspected of engaging in or supporting potential domestic terrorist activities. However, the Constitution of the United States provides ample protections and guarantees for avoiding liberty violations and human rights violations which are intended to oppress virtually unlimited powers by the executive branch of the country. Phone and Internet surveillance are of critical concern to those who value their human rights and liberties, especially in a country that continues to publicly assert that importance of these conceptions as part of American ideology. There seems to be a type of hypocrisy and duplicity between tangible government activity when supporting the Patriot Act and the PRISM program as compared to rhetoric that suggests democracy and freedom as fundamental American values and rights. This research project examines the conceptions of liberty, human rights, and established laws that support phone and Internet surveillance to determine whether such legislations violate these supposedly inalienable guarantees that should be afforded to American private citizens via the U.S. Constitution. Research on the topic would seem to both support that such violations are occurring whilst also defending the role of the executive branch. NSA Phone and Internet Surveillance Introduction The events of September 11, 2011 sparked a resurgence in the need for the United States government to be more diligent in protecting domestic security. The group of terrorists that high-jacked several flights with the intention of using them as weapons of destruction against important American structures performed their actions within U.S. borders, apparently occurring without any significant foreknowledge despite the presence of the FBI and CIA, two agencies capable of providing intelligence that impacts potential national security policy. The 9/11 events were coordinated on U.S. soil, creating a substantial concern about the integrity and viability of the existing national security systems in place in 2001. As a result, a new type of government-sponsored paranoia was constructed, motivating the government to enact a new series of national security policies and legislations designed to facilitate more breadth in intelligence production. The United States was selected as a focus of research as there has been considerable debate in its society about the constitutionality of various surveillance and counter-terrorist activities currently sponsored by the National Security Agency, the White House and other relevant national authorities. The U.S. is a democracy where liberty is a fundamental demand of its citizenry. The government appears to be over-stepping its executive and legislative authorities by conducting such activities, sparking citizen outrage and controversy, making it an interesting case study into how government is able to circumvent laws designed to protect American citizens from government paranoia and suspicion masked by legislative protections. To uncover the dynamics of this issue, a qualitative, case study approach was conducted through consultation with primary and secondary sources to view the situation from multiple angles, inclusive of citizens, government and judicial actors in the nation. The Critical Issue The events that occurred on September 11, 2001 occurred on the heels of the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building carried out by domestic citizens Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. This bombing in Oklahoma City was targeted at the structure as a means of enacting revenge against the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Social Security Administration which all maintained offices in the federal building (Linenthal, 2001). The two domestic terrorists were completely incensed by gun control laws, believing that the government was attempting to seize people’s liberties and prevent citizen self-protection against corrupt and oppressive government (Michel & Herbeck, 2001). After 9/11, having experienced two significant terrorist scenarios on domestic soil, the government began to express more concern about the potential threat of domestic terrorists that posed security risks to the nation. There was a belief in government that domestic citizens, such as McVeigh and Nichols, might become sympathizers to foreign terrorists with a violent agenda against the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines domestic terrorists as those who hail from the U.S. who conduct “illegal utilization of force against individuals, groups or properties in an effort to enact intimidation or coercion against citizens or government in an effort to further their politically-motivated or social agendas” (FEMA, 1997, p.2). To combat this potential threat, whether legitimate or based on government paranoia, the U.S. Patriot Act was established on October 26, 2001. Then-President George Bush signed this Act into law, an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The Patriot Act gave government the authority to conduct roving wiretaps and other surveillance methods against domestic citizens (Mulliken & Rahman 2010). Yet another piece of legislation enacted in 2007, the PRISM program, allowed the National Security Agency to collect data related to Internet communications by demanding that companies such as Apple, Inc. and Google, Inc. hand over domestic data that maintains matches to specific terms constructed by the government that are considered relevant for discussion about domestic terrorist activities (Johnson, 2013). The critical debate about new government authorities to extend their surveillance by phone and Internet, as targeted at domestic citizens, is that human rights and liberties are protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This amendment was introduced to the Constitution in 1789 by James Madison as further effort to ensure that citizens are protected against tyrannical government. The Fourth Amendment states in its language: “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers and all his possessions” without probable cause (Roots, 2010, p.20). Paranoia and suspicion do not qualify as legitimate, legally-supported criteria for violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an influential non-profit organization maintains a mission to “guard liberty” and to “defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee to every person in the country” (ACLU, 2014, p.1). The ACLU continues to appeal judicial rulings stating that NSA surveillance tactics are constitutional in an effort to protect the people against alleged Fourth Amendment violations (Mihalcik, 2014; Trotta, 2013). The Fourth Amendment clearly indicates that in order to engage in government-sponsored search and seizure of citizen property, there must be a legally-mandated rationale for these actions. According to the ACLU, the Patriot Act is no longer accountable for presenting tangible evidence that subjects who have been victimized by search orders have engaged in or discussed criminal activity, hence a lack of probable cause for surveillance (ACLU, 2014). Additionally, legal protections under the PRISM program and the Patriot Act prevent such organizations as Google, Inc. that have been forced to hand over Internet records are preventing from disclosing the surveillance information to the public as a result of a standing gag order. Therefore, those who have been spied on in this fashion never have access to knowledge that they were subject of government investigation (ACLU, 2014). Hence, the balance of powers that were established at the foundation of the United States as a country are consistently undermined. Whilst citizens and special interest organizations such as the ACLU consistently iterate that unchecked government powers and the ability to circumvent even the Constitution violate human rights and liberties, the government views this from a different perspective. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher, stated that citizens must yield to supreme rulers that have the ability to bring about lasting peace through the ability to enact war or negotiate peace as an instrument of citizen protectionism (Haftendorn, 1991). This view led to the development of what is now referred to as Classical Realism, a modern theory in international relations, stating that if the objective of a sovereign is to ensure protectionism, it may engage in promoting its own self-interests to sustain or improve national and citizen security (Dunne, Kurki & Smith, 2005). Though largely a philosophical stance, the government appears to be prescribing to Classical Realism, suggesting that self-interest towards improving national security maintains positive outcomes for establishing lasting protectionism and domestic peace for citizens, hence justifying any ethical debate about security practices. Classical Realism would allow any government statesperson to justify phone surveillance and the PRISM program as these activities ensure the survival of the state with much less consideration about alleged moral and ethical responsibilities to citizens since it is the citizen that maintains the ultimate benefit of improved lifestyle and security. Classical Realism is also founded on the lessons provided by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides who suggests that the conception of wrong versus right government behavior is a vague scenario not necessarily justified by the notion that there is a universal set of moral and ethical codes that can apply in all situations to determine guilt and culpability of government actors. Offered Thucydides, “governance has never turned aside from the opportunities of aggrandizement (exaggeration) that is provided by superior strength” (Woodruff, 1993, p.76). There have been many instances where the executive branch of the government attempted to exaggerate the potential threats to security that are alleged to be imposed by domestic citizens, thus enlarging the authority and scope of the executive branch. Though philosophically, phone and Internet surveillance of domestic citizens is often alleged to be morally incorrect, such historical exaggerations were able to convince many judicial and legislative leaders in the government to pass legislation that now protects such acts despite social and ethical objections about its relevancy and integrity. The main issues of interest, therefore, is the extent to which phone and Internet surveillance of domestic citizens can be justified or whether these activities manage to oppress human rights and the Constitutional liberties of Americans. In order to effectively answer this question, it is first necessary to define human rights and the concept of liberty and then relate these definitions to the government’s role in attempting to secure national and citizenry security by expanding the powers of the executive branch of government. What is Liberty? The classical definition of liberty is allowing an individual to maintain absolutely control over their actions and decision-making processes. Liberty is about maintaining self-determination and establishment of individual freedoms that provide someone with independence and total sovereignty over their lifestyles with freedom to seek achievement of self-motivated goals. Liberty ensures one is able to make their own choices and be non-conformist to majority social expectations by establishing their individual free will in virtually every conceivable area of lifestyle. Liberty is also about the quality by which individuals have the right to exercise control over their personal actions. For instance, liberty coincides with the notion that individuals should be absolutely free of government-imposed or socially-imposed coercion that not only allows them to exert their free will, but also be accountable for these actions. Hence, liberty is about not having to succumb to any power, superior or inferior, that attempts to intimidate or otherwise pressure conformity (Westbrooks, 2008). It is about being completely free of oppression and dominion by any force, thus allowing one to do exactly as he pleases without constraint by politics or society. Liberty, considerate of all definitions, is a construct ensuring that an individual is not prohibited to make their own decisions and to be free of oppression by government antagonism or control. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution states, “We the people….establish justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” (ConstitutionUS, n.d., p.1). As previously illustrated, the main debate is that NSA phone and Internet surveillance violates the precepts of the Constitution. Clearly, the main goal of the establishment of the Constitution is to ensure better social welfare, accomplished through securing the blessings of liberty. With the notion that liberty is defined as absolute autonomy without having to succumb to oppressive or superior forces, then phone and Internet surveillance serves as this coercion to conform to government ideals of acceptable citizen behavior, thereby subjugating liberty. This would fundamentally be a violation of the U.S. Constitution that is designed to ensure that there are limitations placed on the authority and oppressive power of government officials. Since the Patriot Act and the PRISM program deny taking accountability for the rationale for what imposed surveillance against national citizens, it is solely suspicion or paranoia servicing as the justification for invading one’s privacy. An individual, under the conception and definition of liberty, that engages in self-determined discussions with another citizen is enacting their liberty for free speech. Though such discussions, when intercepted by the National Security Agency as being related to established terminology that is alleged to have national security risks, but is not engaging in terrorist discussion or activity, is being oppressed (theoretically) by sovereign and superior forces which would be an absolute violation of the liberties protected by the Constitution. However, a responsible examination of the Preamble to the Constitution could also favor government intervention in the PRISM program and surveillance protected by the Patriot Act. The Preamble clearly states the goal of providing for the common defense. From a practical lens, government representatives are elected to their relevant positions as a means of securing the interests of the people through a democratic process controlled by the people. In the role of a representative of the executive branch, the obligation is to serve as defense minister, able to oversee the activities of the armed forces and oversee policing agencies. These obligations are directly associated with defense administration as illustrated by the Constitution’s Preamble and, subsequently, the Patriot Act and the PRISM program are consistently publicized as efforts to ensure greater national security and defense. The Patriot Act and the PRISM program expanded the powers of the executive branch and its representatives, hence theoretically satisfying expectations for ensuring the common defense. Under this argument, it would not be a violation of liberties for American citizens, it is only securing the obligations and responsibilities of executive branch leadership in defending the protectionism of citizens, a framework of government activity that was constructed by the people, for the people as illustrated by the Preamble to the Constitution. What are Human Rights? Human rights are defined as the specific moral principles that are intended to govern human behavior. Human rights are considered to be inalienable rights that a person is entitled to simply as a result of being a human being (Donnelly, 2003). They are considered universal rights which protect an individual from any group or sovereign force that interfere with foundational freedoms or fail to respect concepts of human dignity. Human rights are considered to be universally inherent that are available to every living human regardless of sex, nationality, ethnic origin, language or color without interference by any discriminatory activity. The question at hand, having defined human rights, is whether the Patriot Act and the PRISM program serve to violate established, universal human rights. The United States, as a member of the United Nations, has ratified specific human rights that are applicable to American citizens. The UN (2014) defines these as: Freedom from arbitrary privacy interference The right to express their opinion freely without interference The right to express these opinions over any media source The right not be compelled to become a member of any association As a member of the United Nations, the aforementioned definitions of human rights must be recognized or run the risk of alleged hypocrisy even if the government intends to illustrate that actions under the Patriot Act and the PRISM program are a method of securing the longevity and security of citizens and the State. The first of these rights, freedom from arbitrary privacy interference, would appear to be a foundational human right that is absolutely violated by government. Since it is recognized that the Patriot Act provides for limited or zero accountability or justification for unwarranted surveillance, universal human rights for privacy sustainment is being overlooked by government representatives in the executive branch. The government has collected countless volumes of phone records and Internet data on millions of citizens that are not involved in any terrorist activities on domestic soil. Any individual would be hard-pressed to justify that these actions do not interfere with the right to privacy that has been mandated by the United Nations. The second of these rights, the right to express opinion freely, is also a theoretical violation of established universal human rights. Those who engage in phone conversations that are critical of government or express these opinions over Internet sources will often trigger matches to established government keywords related to domestic terrorism. Though this may not be a direct form of interference, as not all who have engaged in government criticism are arrested and/or interrogated, it could lead to further surveillance and monitoring even though the foundation of a democratic and free society allows for such criticisms. The third universal right, to utilize any form of media by which to express opinion and sentiment, is rather concrete and self-explanatory as a potential violation of human rights on behalf of the government. Those who choose to criticize the government or discuss domestic or international terrorist groups who trigger keyword matches have chosen to discuss these free opinions with peers or other relevant groups via phone services or the Internet. Hence, the government acts as a subversive organization that attempts, proactively, to expose protected citizens of their right to chastise government or discuss terrorist-related activities that threaten their security whilst triggering further suspicion simply for creating keyword matches in a government, established database of high risk terminologies. When considering the fourth established human right, the right not to be compelled to become a member of any association, would also seem to provide the foundation to justify that the government is oppressive and unlawful according to the Patriot Act and the PRISM program. In the United States, one becomes a citizen of the country simply as a matter of being born on domestic soil, hence being afforded the rights and privileges of all other domestic citizens. However, as previously identified, in the United States, individuals have free speech rights protected by the Constitution and the right to criticize government when it is perceived that it is incompetent, oppressive or corrupt. The very name of the legislation that expanded executive authorities, the Patriot Act, is a deterrent mechanism for domestic terrorist behavior. It has become a ritual in the country for individuals in the elementary school level to cite the pledge of allegiance, a sacrament indicating that one will promise to be loyal to established national ideologies and systems (even if they do not necessarily agree with these doctrines and philosophies). In fact, a recent incident at a middle school in Maryland involved a 13-year-old student who refused to cite this pledge, leading to detainment by school policing forces and an argumentative teacher for this refusal (Suede, 2010). In Mississippi, an attorney who refused to cite the pledge of allegiance whilst in a courtroom was jailed, with the judge citing contempt of court for this refusal (The Smoking Gun, 2010). There is clearly an ideology in the United States with many who maintain strong Patriotic values, in the judicial system and executive branch, that view that United States as an association, a form of social alliance that is intended to define one’s role in the country. David Cole, a lawyer that represents the interests of the Humanitarian Law Project, stated in relation to the Patriot Act, “The danger is that it creates the possibility for government to make it a crime to speak with any group that the government doesn’t like that distorts public debate” (Totenberg, 2010, p.3). The President of the Humanitarian Law Project, Ralph Fertig, has even been jailed for non-violent speech that criticizes the government and the Patriot Act (Totenberg). Having supplied examples of Patriotic extremism in the judicial system, the school system, and the executive branch, it seems clear that any sentiment that segregates an individual from the ideology of the United States (or criticize thereof) leads to potential risks that could potentially serve to violate inalienable human rights related to the right to refuse membership of an association. Those who express these values and opinions via telephone or Internet run the risk of sparking matches to established keywords and terminologies considered threats by the Patriot Act and the PRISM program, thereby enhancing surveillance and monitoring of these individuals. It would, from a moral lens, be a violation of human rights to isolate these individuals under the guise of suspicion and skepticism even though they are simply exercising their First Amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution for free speech. Unlike liberty, which is freedom of coercion when exercising one’s self-determination, the Patriot Act and the PRISM program maintain ample potential for constant and recurring violations of established, universal human rights. Though these programs and legislations do not always lead to long-term surveillance once the individual has been investigated, those in government who might be fanatical in their prescription to the ideology of American association and patriotism serve as oppressive and domineering forces for those who wish to reject this affiliation with widespread social and political sentiment of patriotism in the country. As a result, it should be recognized that the Patriot Act and the PRISM program are substantial human rights violations, injecting a type of hypocrisy and duplicity into the executive branch of the government in an effort to coerce association with American ideologies. Laws, Government Reorganization and the Debate on Torture As a result of the Patriot Act, the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security radically reorganized government in an effort to further secure the interests of national security. The DHS was established to create a framework for securing the internal security needs of the country by consolidating activities in such organizations as the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, FEMA, the U.S. Coast Guard and approximately twenty other agencies. The DHS is authorized to report on suspicious activity of citizens and established an inter-dependent system of experts and authorized agents to advise on potential or perceived terrorist-related risks domestically. The DHS was designed to facilitate a communities of practice framework to improve communications between disparate government departments across the country in response to potential domestic terrorism threats. Coupled with the authorities granted to previous Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, the DHS and the executive branch of the government maintained substantial control and authority to investigate alleged domestic terrorist activity. As an individual who applauded the expansion of executive powers granted by the Patriot Act, Rumsfeld stated, “The United States must respond to terrorism by employing all of the instruments of national power…defending America requires a two-pronged approach” (ACLU of Massachusetts, 2013, p.2). As a stout advocate for the Patriot Act and the PRISM program, Rumsfeld was instrumental in coordinating inter-dependency between the executive branch and the Department of Homeland Security, hence supporting the activities often alleged to violate human rights and citizen liberties. The broadened powers of the executive branch provided by the establishment of the Patriot Act and the PRISM program have led to further allegations that Rumsfeld and associated actors within the systems that drive agency inter-dependencies were utilizing radical methods by which to extract information from citizens regarding alleged (or paranoia-based) connections with terrorism. One such incident involved two whistle-blowers employed by Shield Group Security who alleged that the government had been involved in selling weapons to Iraqi militant groups. When the two men approached the American Embassy for asylum as a result of their whistle-blowing, they alleged that the U.S. military under control of the executive branch blind-folded them and victimized them with brutal torture as a means of coercing and extracting information (ValueWalk, 2012). Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the right to sue Rumsfeld for his alleged support of these torturous actions, which over-turned a landmark 1971 court decision that those exposed to torture could sue the government in the event of such involvement (ValueWalk). This is a prime example, assuming the accuracy of the allegations, of where the Patriot Act seems to be equipped to even influence judicial decision-making. The two men that were denied the right to sue had their liberties violated as well as their human rights. The men alleged that they were thrown against the wall by military interrogators, forced to sleep in outrageously cold environments, and were exposed to countless hours of deafening rock and roll music in order to change behaviors and extract information. The Patriot Act provided immunity from accountability for Rumsfeld for his alleged actions in using torture as a coercive tool, a liberty violation that protects individuals from any such coercion as described previously when defining liberty. Human rights, the right to be free of any scenario that defiles human dignity, would have been violated substantially if the allegations provided by two individuals employed by Shield Group Security were true and forthright. What is disturbing, however, having described the human right to not be compelled to join an association, is the level to which Americans support use of potential torture for suspected terrorists. A recent survey conducted by Suffolk University indicated that 58 percent of those Americans surveyed believed that it would be acceptable as a means of securing national interests and security (Bedard, 2011). As previously identified, there are those in government and in society that are so highly patriotic that is could potentially approach fanaticism, illustrated by a shouting teacher chastising a student for refusing to cite the pledge of allegiance and the attorney jailed under contempt of court for refusing the same. It is a universal and established right for citizens to be free of coercion (a liberties violation) to engage in such an association and the use of torture to change behaviors (a human rights violation) should be an unacceptable government activity. With such a wide majority of American citizens supporting torture, it only serves as a foundational catalyst for further government usage of these tactics under the notion that acceptance and embrace of American ideology should be compelled on others even if they disagree with its fundamental doctrines. Coupled with the inter-linkage between agencies within the DHS, the executive branch authorities enhanced through the Patriot Act and the PRISM program, and continuing Congressional support for passing such legislation, it is concerning that individuals in society who are only suspected of being engaged in terrorist activities could be coerced and influenced in such a manner. Where in 1971 individuals were allowed to sue the government for engaging in torture as a means of coercing or intimidating others, now there are precedents supported on the back of the Patriot Act and other relevant legislation that continues to violate not only liberties, but also human rights that are mandated by the United Nations charters. Those who attempt to challenge the broadened powers of the Patriot Act, as only one example, continue to be shot down by the judicial system that seems adamant to protect the fundamental scope of broadened authorities granted to the executive branch of the government. Coupled with social sentiment that seems to support radical anti-terrorism methods, under the conception of a national association, human rights violations and liberties violations appear to go unchecked and without any measurable accountability by those who engage in these violations. Conclusion This research project examined the critical issue of the Patriot Act and the PRISM program in being allowed to engage in surveillance of citizen phone activities and Internet discussions. Not only is society potentially impacted in terms of liberty protections and human rights protections, but even the companies that sustain these communications channels by being forced to succumb to sovereign forces in government to cooperate with questionable and debatable moral and ethical activities in the pursuit of enhancing national security. Having defined liberty as being free of coercive forces that attempt to stifle or change one’s free will and human rights, as mandated by the United Nations charters, it would appear that government intervention involved with the Patriot Act and the PRISM project continue to violate fundamental rights and liberties. Of course, this research project argued in potential favor of government officials, especially those in the executive branch, that are performing their obligations and responsibilities for ensuring the common defense, fundamental objectives that were originally supported by the people of the United States. As illustrated, the Preamble to the Constitution seems to represent a rather duplicitous definition of what constitutes human protections, mandating defense security and guaranteeing the blessings of liberty which are conflicted by legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, and executive role in overseeing the roles and responsibilities within these frameworks. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the research is that whether liberties or human rights are violated are a matter of philosophical, ethical and moral perspectives primarily. Though if the men described in this project who were employed by Shield Group Security were actually the victims of torture as a coercive measure, there is clearly a violation of both liberties and human rights which should impose accountability on political actors who approved or applauded these activities, regardless of whether social sentiment supports such activities. The Patriot Act and the PRISM project, as a critical issue in American politics today, seem to have a supportive framework that allows for recurring liberty and human rights violations to continue with little recourse of citizens impacted by these activities to seek judicial branch remedy in such situations. This should be of great concern to American civilians who could potentially be victims of government coercion, oppression and autocracy based largely on patriotic paranoia and suspicion. References ACLU. (2014). Surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from https://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under- usa-patriot-act ACLU of Massachusetts. (2013). Donald Rumsfeld and the militarization of domestic police. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from http://privacysos.org/node/1027 Bedard, P. (2011). Poll shows Americans have a Do what it Takes Approach to Terror, U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/05/25/public-backs- torture-patriot-act ConstitutionUS. (n.d.). The United States Constitution. Retrieved March 3, 2014 from http://constitutionus.com/ Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Dunne, T., Kurki, M. & Smith, S. (2005). International Relations Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. FEMA. (1997). Emergency Response to Terrorism: Self-Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. Retrieved March 7, 2014 from http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/ertss.pdf Haftendorn, H. (1991). The Security Puzzle: Theory-building and Discipline-building in International Security, International Studies Quarterly, 35(1), pp.3-17. Johnson, L. (2013). George W. Bush defends PRISM: “I Put that Program in Place to Protect the Country”, Huffington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2014 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/george-bush-prism_n_3528249.html Linenthal, E. (2011). The Unfinished Bombing: Oklahoma City in American Memory. New York: Oxford University Press. Michel, L. & Herbeck, D. (2001). American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing. Harper. Mihalcik, C. (2014). ACLU Fights Ruling on NSA Phone Surveillance, CNET. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57616489-38/aclu-fights- ruling-on-nsa-phone-surveillance/ Mulliken, A. & Rahman, S.M. (2010). The Ethical Dilemma of the USA Government Wiretapping, International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 2(4), pp. 32-39. Roots, R. (2010). The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Gonzaga Law Review, 1(45), p.20. Suede, M. (2010). Refuse to Say Pledge of Allegiance – Get Arrested!. Retrieved March 4, 2014 from http://www.libertariannews.org/2010/02/25/refuse-to-say-pledge-of- allegiance-get-arrested/ The Smoking Gun. (2010). Lawyer Jailed over Pledge Refusal: Mississippi Judge hits Attorney with Contempt Charge. Retrieved March 4, 2014 from http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/stupid/lawyer-jailed-over-pledge-refusal Totenberg, N. (2010). Does the Patriot Act Violate Free Speech?, National Public Radio. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123993822 Trotta, D. (2013). ACLU Challenges NSA Phone Surveillance Program, MSN News. Retrieved March 3, 2014 from http://news.msn.com/us/aclu-challenges-nsa-phone-surveillance- program UN. (2014). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The United Nations. Retrieved March 4, 2014 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ ValueWalk. (2012). The US Government, Iraq, Patriot Act and Torture. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/11/the-us-government-iraq-patriot-act-and- torture/ Westbrooks, L.H. (2008). Personal Freedom, in W. Owens, Freedom: Keys to Freedom from Twenty-One National Leaders. Memphis: Main Street Publications. Woodruff, P. (1993). Thucydides on Justice, Power and Human Nature: The Essence of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. Indianapolis: Hackett. Read More