‘Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship because he banned other political parties.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer. ‘Hitler was able to establish a
First of all, if the NSA were to pursue major invasions of privacy to American’s, they would be obstructing rights set forth by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits non-reasonable search and seizure. If there is no probable cause for the government to search for evidence on an individual, then their legal rights should not be violated. I personally have nothing to hide, but being spied on would make me questions the true ethics of this country. 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.
Imagine a society where the rights of individuals are not protected. A law enforcement agency can search a person’s telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. If they suspect any terrorism-related acts, they can detain anyone indefinitely. This is Patriot Act. Even though advocates claim that the Patriot Act helps to protect the national security, the Patriot Act is unjust.
The Destruction of the American Freedom An instruction memo, discarded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) states, “under certain circumstances, the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law and impinge upon the freedom of others”. Federal counter-terrorism agencies like FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protect citizens and the constitution of the United States of America.. However, what happens when these agencies stop believing in the laws they are to enforce? In the novel, Little Brother by Cory Doctorow, the DHS, turns San Francisco into a police state and break the law they are to preserve. The DHS is so determined to protect society from terrorism that ultimately they destroy the freedom that they are striving to protect.
This isn’t unconstitutional because they’re illegal or legal aliens that aren’t provided for under the constitution. The third act was the Alien Enemies Act, formally called “An Act Respecting Alien Enemies.” This act allowed the president to deport any and or all people from a country at which the United States was at war with. This also is constitutional because the government has to provide for its citizens first before that of peoples of other countries. The final act was the Sedition Act, formally called “An Act in Addition to the Act Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States.” This specifically made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain
This means it exercises absolute and unrestricted power whilst being funded by the public, furthermore all its decisions are binding on the citizens and it can use coercive power to make sure its laws are obeyed and people who do disobey the laws are punished. One interpretation of the state with says that coercion is an essential characteristic of the state is totalitarian states. This interpretation of the state argues for a state with all embracing control spreading throughout all aspects of an individual’s life. The state would control the economy, education, culture, religion and family life. There would be surveillance and terroristic policing to control people’s lives.
Causes of Domestic Terrorism John A Aiple Ashford University Survey of Homeland Security & Emergency Mgmt HSM 305 Blake Cheary March 30, 2013 Causes of Domestic Terrorism Throughout the history of the United States domestic terrorism has been a means for individuals or organizations to threaten or intimidate our government in order to achieve a political or social purpose. Understanding their structure and their operating procedures will give our counterterrorism system a better chance of thwarting the next tragedy. I think that it is important to first differentiate between a simple criminal act and an act of terrorism. All actions perpetrated by terrorist are criminal but not all criminal acts are considered terrorism. The criminal act stops when the person has achieved their goal whether it is money or goods.
The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment makes it legal to burn the American Flag. Lastly, flag burning should not be illegal because, if it were to be, Americans would have their right taken away. As Supreme Court Justice William Brennan stated, in a flag burning case, "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so
You bring up examples of freedom of speech but it has nothing to do with social media. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church picketing at dead soldier’s funerals is an obvious example of trying to reject these people their freedom of speech, even though what they are doing is completely wrong. I also think that you think that your audience does not know that much about online privacy as a whole and who controls it. For example, you talk about who is in charge of the privacies and their job, “…search engines are protected by the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes Internet service providers from being held liable for content posted by third parties.” I believe that the point you are trying to get to your audience is to inform them of the privacy issues with these examples and how one day there is a possibility they can be affected from either
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