In the essay “Why Fear National ID Cards?” by Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz elaborates his views on national identity cards and the benefits of having one. He sums it up by stating “A little less anonymity for a lot more security.” With that being said what makes him so sure that something as simple as a national identity card would make society secure? What would stop a person with a national ID from committing a crime or other acts of terror? Yes having one would make it easier to pin point a suspected terrorist but the reality of the situation is there would be no change in the level of security with or without a national identity card. Dershowitz makes it clear that he is skeptical about the idea of national ID cards and states that he supports national identity cards with chips matching a person’s fingerprints.
Although the examination of the exclusionary rule may constitute deterrence for law enforcement, the rule still may be considered constitution although its existence (Zalman, M. (2011)). Rationale and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is separated into three parts. The first part needs an item to be physically collected as evidence. The second part is that the item of evidence has been collected by a governmental officer or a person temporary acting in their behalf, for example; confidential informants. Confidential Informants are told to do acts or buy thing that may be illegal, but they are doing it on behalf of the government (Zalman, M. (2011)).
The problems caused by the Patriot Act are affecting ordinary civilian, especially legal immigrants. This law authorizes of indefinite detentions of immigrants; law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order. Most of the Act only affects to the immigrants. Martin Luther King Jr. writes, “An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself” (par. 15).
“Analyzing the Text” Michael Levin’s, “The Case for Torture” argues that there are various reasons for allowing torture in the United States of America. Michael Levin believes that torture is justified when victims are at risk, claiming that torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. The author makes hypothetical scenarios in which people’s lives are in danger and preventing future events from occurring. Then stating his position on torture when people’s lives are placed in danger. 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.
The U.S. Government takes a lot of safety precautions to protect its property and people, but sometimes they go too far even as far as to invade the privacy of its citizens. In the new film Bourne Ultimatum many example of privacy invasion is demonstrated. Some of these examples of privacy invasion are acceptable under extreme circumstances, but others are not. In one scene the government’s agents received information that a British news reporter uncovered something about an operation called Black Briary, so they tried to track him down by looking up his record. They were able to find his personal information including his address, cell-phone numbers, and job location.
This act reduced the restrictions for U.S. agencies gathering information and intelligence within the United States. Many people argue that the government’s ability to spy on us whenever deemed necessary is a violation of their Civil Rights. This type of intelligence and the capabilities to monitor people however has been around for a while, it is known as the ECHELON program. “The NSA inherited the ECHELON program from AFSA. This global spy network, known as UK-USA, was a
According to Larry Greenemeier, a recent court case, Carpenter V. United States "specifically pits the privacy of information that wireless devices share with their service providers-the towers or " cell sites" devices connect to, the phone numbers they call and answer, and the time and length of those calls-against law enforcement's authority to retrieve that data without a warrant." However, the FBI issued court orders under the 1986 SCA in order to compel carriers to turn that information over to the FBI. This would be acceptable despite the fact that a warrant requires more reasoning to receive. If they felt strongly enough that they had reason to obtain certain information, they should have to convince a judge to see the situation from the same point of view. “ Without a warrant, but with the SCA court order in hand-the FBI compelled MetroPCS to provide about four months of location records for a smartphone owned by suspect Timothy Ivory Carpenter.” Based off of the information the authorities had previously, it would not have been hard to convince a judge to issue them a warrant.
2013.) Living up to its name the USA PATRIOT Act is designed to allow and expand the use of the tools that the government feels necessary to intercept and obstruct terrorism. From my personal experience I don’t think the general public knows that most of these tools were already in place. There were just more structured and restrictive rules put into place to cover our
According to O’Connor (2009) “The USA Patriot Act, for example, violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees by barring those who have been subject to search orders from telling anyone about those orders, even in situations where no need for secrecy can be proven. It also authorizes the FBI to investigate citizens who choose to exercise their freedom of speech with no need to prove that any parts of their speech might be labeled illegal”. I think if someone says something that would cause the FBI to investigate it than there must be something behind it. I don’t think the FBI would intentionally waste their own time investigating an
Terrorist and/or Terrorist crimes should only be prosecuted by federal law enforcement. Local law enforcement may help retrieve a terrorist [if a person is believed to be a terrorist], but only at the federal government’s discretion. For instance, if a person known to be a terrorist is about to leave the country, local law enforcement may be able to react faster in retrieval of the terrorist since federal law enforcement is not as wide spread as local law enforcement. With the issue of illegal immigration, local law enforcement may be able to play a hand in the ground work of these crimes. As the goal of local law enforcement is to uphold the law and protect the local community, they should not concentrate on issues such as illegal immigration.