Introduction Ever since the 9/11 attack in the US, the government has taken up stringent measures which, to say the least, are tough not only for terrorists but also for the general citizenry. Among the most controversial is government’s warrantless tapping of phone conversations that Americans may have with non-Americans. This is however justified by the fact that government only uses the intelligence gathered from such surveillance for security reasons. Although electronic surveillance has been part of United State’s intelligence gathering, for decades now, it has always been a contentious issue (Goldstein 468) Essay Body No laws in the United States constitution prohibited warrantless surveillance. In 1969 for example, the attorney general asserted that the president had the constitutional mandate to order electronic surveillance, with or without a court order, on any organization or individual whose activities were suspicious. In a 1972 case however, the Supreme Court, in a case involving the United States versus US district court , it was ruled that government must obtain court orders for domestic surveillance. The same however did not rule out the possibility that warrantless tapping would be carried out on foreign communication that was suspected to threaten the national security of the United States (Goldstein 468) The Nixon administration was especially notorious for warrantless tapping but never in history did the administration disclose the surveillance records even in court. Some of the cases whose strong evidence was contained in the surveillance records were dropped since by their use, the government would have had to answer to allegations of warrantless tapping (Goldstein 468). The wide spread tapping during Nixon’s administration, however, over-sensitized most Americans against the use of telephones for the exchange of sensitive information. Under section 605 of the American constitution, tapping could be used for intelligence gathering but not as a law enforcement tool (Pallito & Weaver 161). Just as unpopular for warrantless tapping was George Bush’s administration, whose tapping activities were done under the Terrorism surveillance program under NSA. The executive authorization of surveillance under Bush, however, went beyond tapping telephone conversations. It covered (and still does), emails, internet activities, cell-phone messages and other forms of communications that happen between parties within and without the United States (Miller 181). This form of surveillance was made legal with the passing of the 2007 ‘ Protect America Act’. The Bush administration had also scored another first by engaging the telecommunication companies, which provided government with recorded conversations held over their respective networks. Though such actions have no legal backing under the United States constitution, they just show the extent to which the government was stretching its surveillance. The warrantless tapping in many cases beg the question whether it is legal for the government to spy on its citizens. As discussed earlier, surveillance on domestic suspects requires that the government get a warrant for the same. However, in some case, and where the government feels that the national security demands so, tapping can be done first and warrants taken later (Miller 182). This is granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which al