Right to Know vs. National Security

Public’s Right to Know vs. National Security

In the wake of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration has curtailed the free flow of information on the grounds that it could assist terrorists in harming the United States. The USA Patriot Act (2001) is the law that was enacted in just six weeks following 9/11 to give the government broad new surveillance and detention powers.

Groups that favor the public's right to know understand the need to keep highly sensitive information under lock-and-key and to apprehend suspected terrorists expediently and before they can inflict harm on the United States. However, they are deeply concerned about this ever-growing veil of secrecy as well as the unchecked power of government agents. Individuals in support of the public's right to know say public access to government information keeps our politicians honest and ensures they serve in the best interest of the people. They also claim search-and-seizure operations without the authorization of a judge or grand jury violate the rights of those who arouse suspicion. With thousands of documents disappearing from public scrutiny since 9/11, and the unmitigated "sneak-and-peek" activities of government agents, Americans risk a government unchecked and unrestrained.

Many claim that First and Fourth Amendment freedoms are being severely abridged by the Patriot Act. Yet, no one wants to see our national security threatened. This is a classic case of two rights in conflict: the right to information in order to govern ourselves, and the right to safety from terrorist attack. Given this dilemma, each member of the media and each citizen must consider where he or she stands on the issue. Should the balance be tipped slightly to favor the public's right to know, or should it favor national security?

If Journalism's first obligation is to the truth and its first loyalty to citizens, should the government's recent restrictions on freedom of information be lessened so that the news media would have more freedom to investigate or do the media have sufficient power already to be an independent monitor of power?

Do you think the media already have sufficient power to investigate

Your paper should be approximately 5 pages long. Specifically, I will examine how well you:

- Describe the issue

- Analyze the issue & present your own arguments

- Interpret the issue according to your opponents' best arguments

- Evaluate the implications of the issue based upon your own frame of reference.

Overall, I'm looking for strong arguments in support of your opinions, in addition to thoughtful consideration of opposing viewpoints.

Save your paper according to this naming convention: LastnameCOM110Paper3.doc.

If you wish to spend more time, the following links will add to your knowledge.

ACLU's assessment of the Patriot Act & the Justice Department's website (PDFs)

This website details ways in which it sees the Freedom of Information Act as being weakened:

Here is the memo by Attorney General Ashcroft in which he gives new, more restricted criteria for responding to Freedom of Information requests by the public or media (To understand what Freedom of Information Act is, read p. 544 in your book):
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2001foiapost19.htm

The Sacremento Bee has written some great investigative pieces on the USA Patriot Act and its sweeping powers. We looked at the quotes from the newspaper ("Liberty in Balance") in class. Take a look at the coverage for yourself. Great info!
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/liberty/

USA Patriot Act, signed Oct. 26, 2001, is reported in these four stories (PDFs)

This government website is a good example of the new powers of our government. What do you think of the Terrorism Information Awareness System?
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm