Presentation  · Does not exceed 10 minutes  All are at least minimally met  Some targets are at least    

· Professionalism is displayed  minimally met    

· Product is well incorporated into    
the presentation    
· Student is clearly prepared and    
well-versed on their topic    
· All content demands are included    
in the presentation    
  
  

Audience  · Student is engaged 100% of the  Target is minimally met  Target is not met    
Engagement/  time as evidence by attentiveness,    
Participation  avoidance of distraction, questions,    
and note-taking.    
  
  
  
  

  
 
Appendix B. Student Sample of Final Product  
 
**This student chose to write and give a persuasive speech as the final product. This is the written transcription submitted by the 
student. The submitted bibliography follows. It is important to note that the bibliography lost rubric points for not including all cited 
works in the speech (i.e. Foreign Surveillance Act). The intent of including this incomplete bibliography is to preserve the integrity of 
the student’s work, not deny credit to source evidence in the speech.   
 
National Security Agency Wiretapping: A Violation of Civil Liberties or Protecting the People? 
 
Pierre Joseph Prouhon once stated, "To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, 

numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured (and) commanded, 

by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so,". In order to protect the best interests of we, the 
people, our government follows a set of guidelines and rules. However, when the government finds itself running without a leash, 

without legality, the integrity of democracy and civil liberties are threatened. Shortly after the events that transpired on 9/11, the Bush 

administration sanctioned the unlawful, unwarranted NSA wiretapping searches. This sparked immense controversy and discourse 

throughout the country. We live in a wonderful country. We live in a powerful country. We live in a globally assertive country. 

Unfortunately, that has placed us into the global limelight. Consequently, terrorism is a problem that persists in our country to this day. 

We are left with the question of how to deal with terrorism, and protect our people. As citizens of this great nation, we have to decide 

what is more important to us in the grand scheme of things. The question remains, "National Security Agency Wiretapping: A Violation 

of Civil Liberties or Protecting the People?" 

Some believe that nothing is more important than ending the loss of life. Frankly, terrorism is a persistent threat to our way of 

life. Some believe that preventing these heinous crimes against humanity is worth the restriction of civil liberties. The stance is one of 

emotionality and sympathy. Interestingly, these unwarranted searches markedly decreased the threat of terrorism in the years 

immediately following 9/11. According to an interview from Scott Johnson, performed by PBS, "It seemed to me that the program was 

probably a very valuable program to protect the United States; that it had served that purpose; that it probably had something to do 

with the fact that we haven't been attacked for five years in the United States since 9/11," (Johnson). Johnson went on to explain how 

terrorism has fallen since the NSA began their wiretapping. Some said that if there is nothing to hide, people should be okay with these 

searches. With the scandal, the country was deeply divided over the question of whether civil liberties or protection was more 

important. 

Another group of the population believed that the wiretapping itself was a violation of their privacy. Simply, this group found 

their civil liberties more important than the impending threat of terrorism. They argued that civil liberties are what made America the 
country it is today. Without protections of privacy, the freedom that was ensured by our forefathers would be worthless. Moreover, the 

unlawful wiretapping was an egregious misuse and abuse of power by both the NSA and the Bush administration. According to 

Jennifer Granick and Christopher Sprigman of the New York Times, "the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and 

other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law," (Granick and Sprigman). How can we trust a 

country that breaks promises to its people? That is, how can we trust a country that does not honor the integrity of the institution of 

privacy? What is the true value of our country's word and consequently, our civil liberties?  

Although terrorism is an unspeakable act, I believe that violations our civil liberties is not the right approach. We live in a world 

where laws and moral codes hold together people who are pushed to the limits by devastation. The National Security Agency was 

clearly and visibly wrong in their unlawful wiretapping, "Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on 

Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants 

ordinarily required for domestic spying," (Risen and Lichtblau). Ethically speaking, the NSA was indisputably in the wrong with the 

scandal, even if it was done with the best of intentions. Privacy and civil liberties are pillars of democracy. They are inherently built into 

basic American philosophy. Furthermore, the American government has repeatedly stripped away civil liberties in the interests of 

safety and, quite frankly, it tends to alienate much of the country. Whether it be the Sedition Act, Espionage Act, or even the 

Japanese internment camps, honoring the integrity of democracy is to honor the rights and civil liberties of the people. At what point 

does our country compromise its core beliefs? I do not know the answer to that question, but I hope we never have to find out.  

Similarly, there is no legal backing or constitutionality to the actions of the NSA. In fact, the President and the NSA just 

disregarded the chain of command, "The first one is that Congress, somehow and without saying so, in authorizing the use of military 

force against AlQaeda on September 14, 2001, somehow implicitly overrode FISA and gave the President unlimited authority to 
conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans," (Case Western Reserve University 513). Under the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1978, 

there is a 15-day period in which warrantless wiretapping can occur during times of war. However, Congress did not intend on the act 

becoming expansive and thus, the Bush administration displayed a notable misuse of power. One could then argue that under Article 

Two of the Constitution, the President has authority over foreign affairs. However, the NSA performed their wiretapping to inhibit 

domestic threats. Furthermore, under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, "the right of the people to be 

secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause," (United 

States Constitution). What is the purpose of having a set of rules and laws if they are consistently manipulated for a select few?  

Ethically speaking, it is the government's job to protect our citizens. However, it is the government's job to protect our citizens 

lawfully! The National Security Agency and the Bush administration both wildly abused their power with the wiretapping scandal, 

despite having the best of intentions. I have given you the opinions of two polarized groups on the issue. I have given you my opinion. 

With that, I leave with you a question, is the "National Security Agency Wiretapping: A Violation of Civil Liberties or Protecting the 

People?"  

Bibliography  
 
Cole, David D., and Ruth Wedgewood. “NSA Wiretapping Controversy.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 37, 
no. 2, 2006, scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1378&context=jil.  
 
Constitute, www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992. De Vogue, Ariane. “Court Rules NSA Program 
Illegal - CNNPolitics.” Google, Google, 7 May 2015, 
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/05/07/politics/nsa-telephonemetadata-illegal-court/index.html. Godoy, Maria.  
 
“NSA Wiretapping: The Legal Debate.” NPR, NPR, www.npr.org/news/specials/ nsawiretap/legality.html. Granick, Jennifer Stisa, and 
Christopher Jon Sprigman. “Opinion | The Criminal N.S.A.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 June 2013, 
mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/ opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html.  
 
Johnson, Scott. “Interviews Scott Johnson.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/ 
wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/interviews/johnson.html.  
 
Savage, Charlie, and James Risen. “Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 
Mar. 2010, mobile.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/ us/01nsa.html 
 
The Constitution of the United States. 
 
 
Appendix C. Unit Debrief Assignment  
 
Terrorism Culminating Unit Debrief 
  
Task:​ Use what you’ve learned to respond to the following prompts. Work should be typed, double-spaced and in 12 pt font. Please 
create a separate document and number your responses. Complete sentences should be utilized and you should use ample 
evidence to support all claims.  
  
1.Reflection question: Considering the various topics that were discussed, what civil liberties seem to be the most vulnerable to ethical 
violations by national security decisions and policies? Include evidence from multiple presentations to support your claims.  
2. Reflection question: After viewing all of the presentations, would you agree that it is ok to ignore civil liberties in the name of 
national security when combating terrorism? Why or why not? Include specific examples from the presentations to support/refute 
your claims. 
3. Simulation question: Choose one of the following scenarios. Think carefully about the various options for response the United States 
may have. Determine what you consider the best response to the situation would be from the perspective of national security. 
Scenarios were drawn from the Choices Curriculum Unit on Responding to Terrorism from Brown University.  
  
  Scenario A: U.S. Oil Ports: Saudi Arabia and Russia Hit 
  
In an apparently coordinated attack, two explosions at ports on the East and West Coasts of the United States have crippled signi 
cant portions of the country’s oil distribution system. ISIS has taken credit for the attack. A bomb in an oil tanker moored at the port of