The threat of terrorist attacks changed American culture immensely; the devastation wakened the need for protection and a sense of security. Dramatic measures were taken in order to protect this country, so foreign relations were severely affected. Post 9/11 government saw the “link between immigration and security”, and that by changing foreign policy it would “reduce the likelihood of future attacks” (Krikorian 567).The safety measure in airports were countless from metal detectors to full body scans. “The immigration system has being penetrated by the enemy”, the officials realized which led to unfair accusation of innocents (Krikorian 568). “Overzealous officials” grill suspicious foreigners “to the point of near panic” (Khan 559).
Down with the Patriot Act The Patriot Act is a very controversial law. It allows the government much more room to do as they please. Some of these practices that government officials can do are monitoring phone calls, emails, and going through personal records. They say this will help prevent terrorism, but is losing one’s privacy really worth it? Could there be a better way to prevent terrorism?
They comment that "moving to a mandatory ISP filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material (child abuse and terrorism) is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information." iinet an Australian ISP who are also against the filter accuse Conroy of intentionally giving false information when he claims "85% of ISP's welcome the filter." So now he’s a liar too. The general public has taken protest even further. The group anonymous attempted to "annihilate (the Australian governments) presence on the internet" by dosing Australian government websites, mainly the aph website.
Explain your decision. * * If I had a great story that would increase my website’s popularity but compromise our national security, you bet your butt I wouldn’t publish it. I believe myself to be a patriot. If I were to give up information key to the safety of the people of the United States by jeopardizing our national security, not only would it be considered a felony and potentially put me in prison for the rest of my life, but I would feel guilty for betraying my country. Besides, if I was going to make a name for myself, it would be through hard honest work.
James was very enraged at this because he thought the Huse of Commons was going too far. To him foreign policy was the King's problem not Commons's. They outstepping their rights. => Crisis become James threatened the Commons of punishment if it kept asking these thgs and conversly the Commons replied by publishing a statement their rights. For the first time people asserted their rights and the freedom of speech.
‘HHMM’, Hollywood, Harvard, McDonald’s, and Microsoft, were selling not only their products but also America's culture and values, the secrets of its success, to the rest of the world.' However, employing only hard power or only soft power in a given situation will usually prove inadequate. Nye utilizes the example of terrorism, arguing simply utilizing soft power resources to change the hearts and minds of the Taliban government would be ineffective and requires a hard power component. Nevertheless, in the Middle East, in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, the openness of Western culture is repulsive, which we have a term for it ‘anti-Americanism’. As a result, Joseph Nye, suggests that the most effective strategies in foreign policy today require a mix of hard and soft power resources, the ‘smart power’.
Should George Bush be impeached?DS: Do you think George Bush should be impeached? NS: I think there is a case for him to be impeached, but I don’t think it would be a good idea. The reason I say there is a case because partly under the Constitution it’s high crimes and misdemeanors, which are not defined and the latest precedent we have is having a blow job in the Oval Office and lying about it is considered to be a high crime and misdemeanor. Well, Bush, has clearly lied to Congress, the American People, to the media about much more serious infractions and violations of the Constitution. He’s had a view that as Commander-in-Chief he can do whatever he wants, that he’s above the law, that he doesn’t have to abide by the laws that are duly
And they’re right they should. But the fact that the country was attacked by people who easily incorporated themselves into the nations daily life raised a huge problem. And that’s when people started to wonder how much intrusion of citizens lives should the government be allowed in order to provide protection for the citizens of the United States. The expansion of government power is a bitter acceptance for fellow Americans. The reason I say that is because when the power of the government expands people tend to put more trust into state and local governments rather than the federal government.
Many Americans think that safety is important and are willing to give up their civil liberties and first amendment rights; but then where does it stop? If the government is allowed to do whatever they want under the guise of combating terror, then America will surely cease to be a democratic republic. In the book “The Dark Side” written by Jane Mayer, it is stated that some in the extreme right wing of the Republican Party believe that there are too many civil liberties and too many checks and balances against the Executive Branch and that these should be removed (Mayer, 2008, p. 6). The “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT act), that was enacted after 9/11, has many sections that take away the rights of Americans, most of which were probably never even read by the members of congress. One of the many horrors that this act allows is the legality of the law enforcement to acquire and view e-mails sent via the World Wide Web as well as phone numbers that you have dialed without first informing you or without obtaining a court order.
The Washington Times and the Washington Post, two online periodicals, posted an article about President Bush’s point of view about deportation. “Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It’s just not going to work,” Mr. President said. “The biggest problem in this debate is going to be what to do with the people who are already in our country illegally.” “A person ought to be allowed to get in line. In other words, pay a penalty for being here illegally, commit him or herself to learn English, which is part of the American system, and get in the back of the line.” President Bush is against massive deportation of illegal immigrants; he states that a massive deportation won’t help the United States solve the problems with illegal