The Bush administration is under investigation for authorizing the National Security Agency to monitor suspected terrorists through wiretapping without a warrant.
The New York Times recently started printing stories about the government's illegal wiretapping, but the paper has known about it since the fall of 2004, according to Dennis McDougal, publisher of Rosebud Publishing, Inc. and part-time writer for The New York Times.
The story was held after the White House contacted The New York Times and told them not to print the story because it was a matter of national security.
Now many Americans are worried that this wiretapping investigation is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal in the 1970's.
"It certainly has its possibilities," said McDougal. "It depends on how far (the investigation) goes."
Chad Clay, political science graduate student, said he does not think the investigation will reach Watergate status.
"It would be surprising if it even got as big as the Lewinsky scandal," Clay said. "The Bush administration is handling it in such a politically adept way. I think they'll get away with it."
Matthias Kaelberer, associate political science professor, said he doubts the investigation will hit Watergate status.
"It doesn't have the broad visibility of Watergate," he said.
The actual wiretapping of suspected terrorists is supported, but the dispute is over Bush's decision to skip getting a warrant from the Judiciary Branch.
"The Patriot Act made it very easy for the Executive Branch to get a warrant," Clay said. "Bush went out and broke the law in order to skip the middle man and validate his power."
A similar act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows eavesdropping on U.S. citizens if there is a warrant, would have also kept Bush legal in the view of many critics.
Chastia James, freshman nursing major, approves of monitoring suspected terrorists, as long as it is done legally.
"He should have gotten the warrants he needed," she said. "I think it will backfire on him."
While the similarities with Watergate are evident, the investigation is wrapped in controversy because the war on terror is Bush's reason for implementing it.
"No one is disputing it as a strategy for the war on terror," said Kaelberer. "The question they are asking is what are the correct procedures for implementing that strategy?"
