On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
The Alien and Sedition Acts and the Patriot Act have a lot in common. One of these laws passed under the Alien and Sedition Acts forms the basis of the Patriot Act. They were all to protect us even though it gave away some of our freedoms. That is what the debates are about. It is either they take away some of our freedoms and leave us with safety, or leave us with freedoms and take away some of our safety.
14). In other words, a just law makes human being to feel important and confident. An unjust law gives a false sense of who they really are. Likewise, the Patriot Act gives a false implication that if anyone looks suspicious, they become the target of so-called anti-terrorism. The problems caused by the Patriot Act are affecting ordinary civilian, especially legal immigrants.
| They assume they have the duty to take action that may override the demands of law, religion, and social customs. | This issue was chosen because our freedoms regarding personal privacy continually become blurred by private parties and various law enforcement agencies for what they deem to be the greater good. This presents a plethora of ethical contradictions and violates our rights as citizens of the United States. Is it a violation of your spouse's privacy if you install logging software if you suspect them of cheating? Should law enforcement bend the law in order to protect it?
Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
Synthesis Essay The ex-President of the United States, while being interview about the Patriot Act said, “I want to make sure the American people understand ... we have an obligation to protect you and while we're doing that, we're protecting your civil liberties.” Forty-five days after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, also known as the; Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The Patriot Act was created with the fine intention of finding and prosecuting international terrorists operating on American soil. However, the unfortunate consequences of the Act have been drastic. Many of the Patriot Act’s provisions are in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, a document drafted to protect American rights and freedoms. The Patriot Act authorizes unethical and unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens with a negligible improvement in national security.
This illustrates the conflict between the freedom of individual privacy and the order from the government’s political values. But the government argues that it needs the power to track suspects as a way of protecting the order in society, keeping tabs on potential criminals. 2. Planned Parenthood v.
However, any restriction placed upon civil liberties must be proportionate to the threat. If there are disproportionate measures put in place, it may be questioned as to whether, they can be legally sanctioned. One of the most fundamental rights of major concern is that of ”freedom of speech.” This right, following the atrocity of 9/11 is perhaps used more restrictively. A person may fear that their speech may lead to investigation if it is seen to be threatening or anti-governmental in its nature, as it may be classed as being associated with the idea of a terrorist. Arguably, under the Terrorism Act it was made possible for the police to stop and search persons if there was belief that they were likely to be involved in some sort of terrorist activities.
Paparazzi in the world today have been such a problem over the past, maybe, eight or nine years. I feel that the paparazzi are a social problem because it invades the rights of people. First of all, some agree with the proposal of putting restrictions on the press because it helps to safeguard our basic human rights, one of which should be privacy. Celebrities are entitled to the same general right of privacy that all individuals get to have. “The United States Constitution does not clearly create a “right to privacy.” Thus, on a constitutional level, privacy rights take place via the penumbras of the Third Amendment (prohibiting the quartering of soldiers without a homeowner’s consent), Fourth Amendment (barring unreasonable searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (conferring a privilege against self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (reserving certain rights that the Constitution does not enumerate to the people).
The words are used with intent to make the victim seem less than a human and unworthy of respect. Free speech is a major issue in the American society and there are various opinions regarding free speech. Although it may be immoral at times, free speech is necessary for a democracy but should be limited when it is a threat to an individual’s freedom. Freedom of speech is the right for a person to express whatever they deem necessary without prosecution or restriction and in the past there has been different views regarding free speech. As a democratic nation, free speech has always been present.