[clip length—4:15]

TEACHER: Okay. What we’re gonna do is just have a brief overview of what wiretapping is, and then you guys are gonna move around based on where you stand on the issue, and we’ll start a debate. So what’s going on in this cartoon? Who wants to interpret this?

STUDENT: Statue of Liberty is spying.

TEACHER: Right. Statue of Liberty’s spying. So wiretapping. Why would the government wanna wiretap? What’s the point of it? DeAndre.

STUDENT: To find if illegal stuff is being traded.

TEACHER: Oh, that’s fine. What is it?

STUDENT: To find out if illegal stuff is being traded to other countries.

TEACHER: Can wiretapping ever be legal?

STUDENT: Yeah.

STUDENT: It can be.

TEACHER: What do you have to do in order for it to be legal?

STUDENT: Get a warrant.

STUDENT: Um, go to court.

TEACHER: Go to court. You have to present evidence to a judge. And then if the judge thinks there’s enough evidence, they’ll issue a warrant. That give the police…

STUDENT: Yeah, a warrant.

TEACHER: …the— the opportunity to wiretap. So basically, the way the government works—we haven’t gotten to this—two branches have to work together. The police are part of the executive branch, the judge is part of the judicial branch. In order to make sure one doesn’t become too powerful, the executive branch has to get a warrant from the judicial branch. And if they get that warrant, they can wiretap. Well, since 9/11, President Bush and his administration has argued that the— we may have many terrorists living within our country, and they need to be able to wiretap—the FBI, the National Security Agency—without getting a warrant. Why? What would be the problem to get a warrant? Why can’t they do it the old way? What are they afraid of? What’s some’a the arguments? What do you think, Abdul?

STUDENT: It might take too long.

TEACHER: Take too long, and what else?

STUDENT: Uh, oh, it— it might take too long and, uh—

TEACHER: Anyone else wanna take—

STUDENT: What is that?

TEACHER: What don’t they want to happen? Yeah.

STUDENT: Like, I don’t know if a lotta people feel comfortable about that, so they’re gonna, like, say no and not give them the warrant.

TEACHER: They’re afraid they might not get a warrant; that’s an argument, that’s a good point. What else, Brian?

STUDENT: They might find out that they’re trying to wiretap them.

TEACHER: Yeah, they don’t want it out in the press. They don’t want— if they’re sear— looking for a terrorist that they think’s gonna attack the country, they go to a war— if they go to a judge, that’s more people gettin’ involved. It could leak out, their cover could be blown. There is, however, a secret court in the Pentagon that deals with top secret stuff like this. So some argue, Why don’t they just use this court? But—

STUDENT: I think they should be legal, because if the government is, like, suspicious, if they get suspicion about somebody and they just let ’em go, just like when the terrorists, when they started taking, like, flying classes, how to fly a plane...

TEACHER: Mm-hm.

STUDENT: …like, nobody ever acted on it. But now, like, if they act— if they don’t act on it, the people can just. They’ll get— they’ll— like, nobody will know what they’re doin’. They’ll just attack America.

TEACHER: Yeah. And I al— I already heard you use one of the words of the week here, which is good.

STUDENT: When did terrorists get smart enough not to...?

TEACHER: Um, for years, we legally spy on the rest of the world. This is a system called Echelon. We have ’em throughout the world. And what we do is we soak up emails, phone conversations. The US government does this to filter, to see if there’s any international threats. We’ve been doing this legally, where almost every email, cell phone in the world is absorbed, passes through filters. And if the US National Security Agency thinks that there’s something that’s a threat, they act on it. So we already spy on the rest of the world. The question is, should we spy on Americans?

STUDENT: Yes. [inaudible; inaudible voices over each other]

TEACHER: Well, let’s hold out for the debates. We got a couple cartoons. Here’s a man on a couch. He’s depressed. He says, “Come, now. It doesn’t mean you’re not important, just because you’ve never been wiretapped.” So this guy wants to be wiretapped ’cause he thinks it makes him important.

STUDENT: I think we should do…

TEACHER: Well, we’re gonna get some—

STUDENT: …judges think.

TEACHER: We’re gonna get some debate in a second. Here’s Barack Obama. “Man, McCain even supports George Bush’s warrantless wiretap program.” “No, I don’t.” [laughter]

STUDENT: Oh, I get it. He’s listening.

TEACHER: Right. Now, here’s one for supporting wiretapping. Who wants to make sense of this slide?

TEACHER: “Judge rules—” NSA stands for National Security Agency. It’s our topmost secretive— They’re even more secretive than the CIA. And they’re the ones who help keep the US safe. “Judge rules NSA wiretaps illegal.” What’s goin’ on here? What’s about to happen?

TEACHER: So how is this cartoon supporting wiretapping?

STUDENT: Saying that we need it to see what they’re gonna plan.

TEACHER: Very good.

 

- Teacher asks students to interpret editorial cartoons to review the issue of wiretapping.

- Class discusses legalities related to wiretapping.

 

"Debating the Issue" from Teacher Guide

Editorial Cartoon Image