Many people hold the rights given to them in the Constitution, such as the right to work and the right to life, as the foundation of democracy. So what happens when some of those rights, such as the right to privacy, are tossed out during a time of war?
The topic of domestic spying, performed by the National Security Agency, has become a hot issue in recent weeks, with some experts questioning not only its legality, but its respect for human rights as well.
"I think this is stretching the law," said Dick Mahood, political science professor at The University of Memphis. "I think the Bush administration should have gone to the courts and gotten clearance in that regard."
They may very well have to. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prohibits electronic surveillance for no reason, but outlines how to request authorization from the courts to use electronic surveillance on people involved in terrorism or espionage. The only problem is that shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, the National Security Agency has been conducting electronic surveillance on certain individuals without requesting a warrant first.
Matthias Kaelberer, a political science professor at The U of M, said he believes that this is another incident of the Bush administration abusing their power.
"This administration in part has used the 'time of war' argument to accrue a lot of power at the executive level and this is just an example of that," he said.
Kaelberer said that using the threat of terrorism as an excuse for overstepping constitutional boundaries could be a never-ending saga.
"How do you define the end of war on terror? In some sense, this could become an indefinite war," Kaelberer said. "So you could use this as a justification for anything."
David Richards, a political science professor at The U of M with an expertise in international human rights, said that no matter what kind of surveillance is going on, Americans should be wary.
"I think you need to be highly skeptical," Richards said. "Someone really needs to show that what they're doing is legal and appropriate."
The fact that this unwarranted spying has gone on for so long without the public's knowledge has caused some to wonder if it has happened before. Richards said that the secretive nature of such agencies would make that almost impossible to know.
"You wouldn't know about the other times this has happened," he said.
Richards also said that ignoring constitutional rights is not necessary in order to win a war.
"We won World War II and the Cold War without suspending civil liberties," he said.
Lee Campbell, a junior art history major, said that even though domestic spying without a court order is unconstitutional, when used to investigate terrorists it seems O.K. However, Campbell thinks that the spying will turn to ordinary citizens all too often.
"If they use it just for terrorists then I think it's OK, but I don't think it'll be used that way," he said.
Campbell also said that she thinks domestic spying is all too similar to the Red Scare during the 1940s and 1950s, when people suspected of having any kind of tie to communism were investigated and sometimes blacklisted.
"It seems like we're stepping back to the way it was during the Cold War, where I could accuse you of being a communist and then all your rights could be taken away," Lee said.
Kaelberer said that taking away civil liberties does not paint a good picture when the United States is trying to establish democracy in Iraq.
"We are not giving the best model of democracy," Kaelberer said.
