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.
About a month an a half after the tragic attacks the United States government passed a new law called the USA Patriot Act, signed by President at the time George W. Bush. The USA PATRIOT ACT is an acronym that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act (gpo.gov). The PATRIOT ACT posses a greater threat to American liberty than terrorism itself. This is true because the PATRIOT ACT gives the government undemocratic power that is immoral to society, it directly violates amendments and there have been actual cases where the PATRIOT ACT harmed innocent people and was used unsuccessfully. Firstly, if the government of the United States tried to pass the PATRIOT ACT of 2001 today, they would have a much tougher time.
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
First, he became a more focused and more disciplined version of Bush when it came to counter terrorism policy: He killed Osama bin Laden, pulverized al Qaeda, and has so far prevented another attack on the continental United States. Protecting the homeland is the organizing principle of a nation's foreign policy. If you can't do that, you really don't need a foreign policy. Second, Obama committed himself to (and is succeeding in) extricating America from the two longest wars in our history -- wars that were among our most pointless, given what we sacrificed and what we've gotten in return. Third, he kept us out of new ones.
We can control our own actions whether they are right or wrong and be held accountability for them. We can teach others from right and wrong. We cannot control the actions of others even if they are good, but we can definitely hold them accountability for the wrong actions. Having more information about the timeline and events of 9-11 makes me wonder if the President would have acted on some of the information would so many people have died that day. President George W. Bush declared, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never
Isolationism sounds like the right choice, staying out of other countries business’ and protecting its own country but on the other hand, seeing as America is superpower and has a powerful military, why should it not help out other countries in need of political reinforcement and aid? Although there are many great points in favour for interventionism as the policy for the United States, a more peaceful and “keep to itself” nation is the more favorable policy. The United States could worry about its own problems, keep to the original policy of President George Washington, “the great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible...” and other countries may respect America more because of their seclusion from international issues that are unimportant to it. In regards to the famous campaign speech of Albert Beveridge in 1898, a senator from Indiana, he believed in a nation that should rein the world, saying things like, “shall the American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world?”(Beveridge,)ical e United States, I believe in a more pea, he believed in an imperialist nation, he
became a super power was that after WW2, the American government saw a need to keep a vigilant watch on countries that wanted to harm U.S. interests. After the World Wars, enemy countries saw how rich the U.S. was in resources and wanted to capitalize on those resources. Also, they saw the threat of democracy on their own way of life in which those countries' saw the spread of democracy spread further into Europe soon after WW2. (2011, Lagon, M.P.) The differences between foreign policy before and after WW2 were very different.
We should be able to say whatever it is that we want. Even back then they shouldn't be able to put somebody into jail for saying a negative comment about the government or even a leader. They should have had the right to say what they wanted to and to express the way that they felt about it. The Patriot Act was passed for much the same reason as the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was made law in our response to the fear of terrorism caused by the events of 9/11.
The most noticeable change in U.S. foreign policy is its focus on preventive action, not just preemptive action. U. S. foreign policy is aimed at ensuring democracy prevails over terrorism, not just the United States over terrorism, even though the U. S. is flying the ‘freedom’ flag and leading the way as is evident with the war in Iraq. Thus the policies have embraced the need for cooperation between democracies as the problem of terrorism is global, and the Unites States know that the democracies of the world need to combat it together. But in order for democracy to prevail, U. S. foreign policy has had to change policies which were not strategies against communism, but policies which may have in fact created the current world climate. U. S. foreign policy after 9-11 is trying to achieve greater understanding by creating democracies which different cultures can interact