Aff Resolved: The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens. In order to provide clarity for today’s round, I will now offer the following definitions ought: be morally right prioritize: rank things according to importance pursuit: the process of trying to achieve something National security: the protection or safety of ones country objective: the goal attended to be attained digital: a device that can read, write, store information, that is represented in numerical form privacy: the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view from others Affirming achieves the value of morality mandated by the resolution through the use of the word “ought” which is defined as “morally right”, as in it is morally right to do something. In the case of the resolution this means that it is morally right for the government to prioritize national security above privacy. Morality applies to government because is it merely a group of individuals that have the same moral duty as other citizens, as they take on the moral obligations of the government. The proper value criterion for this round will be providing security.
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
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.
Krystian Kotowski English 121 Dr. Wachtel Thesis: Domestic terrorism is a major concern in the United States and the government needs to focus more on this issue. 1. Domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group of two or more individuals, against persons or property. A. Between 1980 and 2000 consisted of 250, of the 335 incidents confirmed to be terrorist acts.
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.
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 September 11, 2001, the United States was invaded for the first time since the War of 1812 also known as “America’s second war of Independence”. Terrorist’s that had been living in America boarded and hijacked civilian airlines, leading to the deaths of many American’s. By no means should we forfeit all Individual Privacy Rights but we should find a way to work with the government that protects us to better our National Security. The terrorist acts of 9/11 forced the U.S Government to take action and create the USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. This act reduced the restrictions for U.S. agencies gathering information and intelligence within the United States.
If any citizen tries to misuse his or her basic rights, or take away other citizens, law enforcement is required to take action on it. Individual citizens are empowered by knowing what their rights are because it can protect you from self-incrimination and, keep the criminal justice system from convicting and individual of something they did not do. It can also help you to not get arrested for something you did not do, Knowing what your rights are can also help you know what is criminal from not being criminal, and can keep you out of the criminal justice system. The role of the
Criminal justice professionals play an important role in the court system, and if they lie on accusations and evidence, the innocent become victims of the dishonesty. A second quality that is good to see in the criminal justice professions is to be objective. It is important for our law enforcement and public servants to not let their personal goals, feelings, or prejudice to get in the way of the criminal justice goals. Objectivity ensures that the professionals will make the right choices even when they have reasons that should make them choose otherwise. A simple example of this trait could be a law enforcement officer writing a ticket to someone regardless of the relationship they may or may not have.
Whenever this law is being used as a defense there should be an extensive investigation into the case in order to root out if it was really self defense or not. This would eliminate cases like the Martin case, where the accused “attackers” were actually the real victims. Nothing is more valuable than human life. Citizens must be able to protect themselves without fear that self-defense will be legally problematic. The Stand Your Ground Law allows for this.