As a group, we decided that the government has a right to tap into certain international conversations and that the plaintiff has no standing. These days, there is a lot of international and national insecurity about terrorism and other illegal activities, such as the large drug cartels that cause violence in Mexico and have started to have an overflow into the United States. In the case of terrorism, precaution needs to be taken to prevent certain disasters, such as the attacks on September 11, 2001, from ever happening again. With the case of the rising power of the drug cartels, they need to be struck down so peace, order, and safety can be restored throughout Mexico and the southern United States. In doing so, some people will get offended, but if it could possibly save lives then it is a small price to pay. However, we believe there is a way to go about this that will be a sort of compromise to the two sides. If the government has evidence, minor or substantial, that illegal activity is being discussed or conducted between two or more individuals, with at least one being foreign, they should not have to obtain a warrant in order to check things out. However, if the government only has suspicion or a hunch and no evidence that illegal activity could be going on between the said individuals, they should be required to obtain a warrant in order to check things out. We believe that this is the best way to satisfy both parties.International Clapper
I think the case will end up a 6 to 3 on Clappers side. The point of the FFA is to try to find information on out of the country acts. They try to find information that could help us with terrorist acts. It was on accident that the FFA got some private information. Amnesty International has no proof of the government trying to wiretap them. If they could come forth with some proof of wiretapping then it would be a different story. In other cases, the petitioner has no proof of wiretapping. I also think that they were not injured. The organizations that Amnesty International talk to relate to targets that US officials look out for. Amnesty said that they lost money in this because they help back costs in order to keep everything a secret.
Standing Sue) I do not think the court is acting properly if the president has to decide. The courts jobs are to decide this matter, not the president. I think there needs to be more rules even stricter rules on this matter. The president should not decide but the cases should.
Secret Court) I think the secret court is neccessary because if held in normal court, it would be open to public which would make the whole thing a waste. There are also other concerns to take unto the court. The whole wiretapping would be pointless if held in “under the sunlight”.