Since its initiation, we only know about one instance in which the NSA stopped has stopped an act of terrorism. That’s not to say that it has only stopped one terrorist organization but this is the only on we know about, but for the amount of money (exact amount is classified, but is estimated to be about $10 billion a year) that is being spent on the NSA more should have been done by now. For example, many school shooters have posted on social media either pictures of themselves armed to the teeth or actual threats against their school. The NSA is supposed to monitor social media, phone records, etc. so why aren’t they catching these school shooters? Couldn’t they be considered terrorists just as much as the people the NSA have caught already? …show more content…
Most people have the standpoint that because it doesn’t affect them, they shouldn’t really bother with doing anything about it. However, doesn’t the NSA breach our Fourth Amendment rights? The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," but doesn’t mass phone data collection violate that? Legally to search someone you need a warrant but the NSA completely bypasses that. But there is also the problem that if the NSA become completely transparent, the terrorist and other people the NSA is trying to catch, will have more knowledge as how to not get caught, which would just make the NSA ineffective. Basically the people have to decide whether they want a government that catches terrorists or one that always protects their freedoms. Most parts of the world would rather have a government that catches terrorists and keeps them safe, but unlike these countries, America (excuse my American exceptionalism) has an amendment for their constitution that bans unreasonable search and seizures. The NSA is in a difficult position because it must weigh how transparent they can be to appease the population with how much secrecy they need to function
The Fourth Amendment makes people in American feel safe and secure. David Sirota author of “Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?” says,"a few years after it aired the director of national Intelligence admitted illegal surveillance was still taking place"(understand). " the Government’s unverified assertion that it has halted “systemic” illegal/unconstitutional surveillance by the National Security Administration." says David Sirota author of “Does the government actually understand the 4th Amendment?”(Understand). Sirota also states "The NSA is admitting that even with an outdated 1997 supreme court ruling it knows it cannot post mass collect metadata with no warrants whatsoever.
The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) was a necessary and effective piece of legislation that enhanced the security of the nation and will continue, in a modified form, to prevent future terrorist attacks although it was quite intrusive on American’s civil liberties. According to detailed study of the decade following 9/11, “If we just look at the decade between 2001 and 2011, we still see that the number of terrorist attacks has declined since Sept. 11.” So, in terms of achieving its goal, it has been successful. Signed into law by President George W. Bush in October of 2001 in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States during
In our world there are many crimes and cases where the government must search a home to find evidence or seize items. But, what happens when the government begins to ignore an amendment and break the trust of people. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Fourth amendment). The fourth amendment was created to protect the people from the government incase they wanted to invade people’s privacy and so the government doesn’t go too far in their searches for
Though the NSA has economically benefited the United States by helping the prevention of attacks by the terrorist, giving fund towards the government and use of programs, and also the prevention of others hacking and taking over the system, it is believed that it is best if the NSA just does not continue any further. With the continuation of the NSA it can cost more taxes to be removed and invading our privacy which is against our rights in the constitution which states, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ” We can solve the problem of the NSA invasion by shutting down their programs causing them to not invade our privacy and use money which could be used for many other
Now in today’s standards, you only have freedom of semi-privacy that the Patriot Act believes is non-threatening. By them monitoring your texts, emails, history along with things you look for in search engines you never truly free to say anything or look up anything you want. Also what followed after this act were the random abductions of people. They take the “random,” person and ship them to another country to loophole their laws of not permitting torturing someone in this country. Instead they hire other countries to do their dirty work.
One group that argues this is the American Civil Liberties Union, which strongly disagrees with the Patriot Act. They have stated that investigations into the Patriot Act, “reveal thousands of violations of law,” (ACLU), while this is simply not true. One controversial piece of the Patriot Act are roving wiretaps. These allow government investigators to follow and put surveillance on certain people, rather than certain devices, so that they may save time and effort. According to Nathan Sales, a law professor at George Mason University, “Federal courts agree that Title III’s roving wiretaps authority is constitutional and… provides strong support for constitutionality,” (Sales).
The PATRIOT Act violates Fourth Amendment: the right to an unlaw search and seizure, and because phone records are recorded without the knowledge of any American it violates the amendment. By secretly recording all phone calls the civil rights of all Americans are being restricted and denied. The government is way over-stepping their boundaries with the PATRIOT Act. Civil rights are of the most importance to every American and it is not something the government has any obligation to intrude upon. The FBI and the NSA break the law by recording the phone calls.
why the NSA is bad some people believe that everything on the internet should be monitored by the NSA, well i believe that is completely wrong and unjust. for a couple reasons. But the main one is that it goes against the fourth amendment in the constitution. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by a probable cause, which means that the NSA can 't search your messages,calls,search history, or data unless they have a reason that is lawful and approved by a judge. But in most cases they don 't have it approved.
Before the 20th century, there were few, if any, cases based on the Fourth Amendment. However, as surveillance by law enforcers became more common, these tactics, and others, were scrutinized in court cases throughout the 20th and 21st century. Within the past 50 years there have been more and more cases held to determine whether or not a citizen’s right were being violated or if authorities were within the law. Like a story with multiple timelines, the outcome of a case disputing the fourth amendment is not always clear or predictable. PII Like many of the other amendments, already established traditions of British law supported the concept of the IV Amendment.
In 2008, President Bush signed into law The FISA Amendment Act, an act which allowed the government to monitor Americans’ electronic devices. Bush claimed that this Act could help save lives, as mentioned before, but what he did not mention is that this allows the government to conduct surveillance without probable cause. (“How the NSA’s Surveillance Procedures Threaten Americans’ Privacy.”) When people heard about this, they became concerned, and many began to question if the NSA would abuse this power.
The United States needs to start seriously monitoring emails, text messages, phone calls, and web searches for any suspicious activity that could lead to terrorism. This is no joke, extremism in the defense of being able to go to a baseball game, or concert without anxiety is no vice. If anyone is a suspected terrorist, they should be monitored. Some people say that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but is it worth risking a life? Monitoring a suspected terrorist could prevent an attack from happening, and save lives.
The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers, and effects..." this in the minds of the people alludes to the right of privacy. However, society misses the other half of this Amendment, which is, "...against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..." In the case of the Government having moderation over the internet, people use the Fourth Amendment on their side. Yet, the Amendment supports the side of the Government. When the Government moderates the internet, they are doing it for the safety of the nation.
The development of technology was an unforeseen source of dispute in interpreting and applying the Constitution. Technologic aid in investigating crime and gathering evidence is often up for debate, particularly in the context of the Fourth Amendment. In the case at hand, petitioner Chester Comerford seeks to suppress evidence of his involvement in drug manufacture and distribution on the basis of a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) made use of warrantless IMSI tracking to establish probable cause for a later warrant. For a number of reasons to be addressed, the FBI did not need a warrant to obtain this information, and thus the evidence shall not be suppressed. The court should uphold Comerford’s conviction on the basis of the following discussion.
Have you ever wondered why the Patriot Act played a big part in history or why it is so important to us? Well the government has compromised our civil liberties through the use of the Patriot Act. They also abused our privacy which wasn’t fair for us. The history of the Patriot Act, the abuse of our rights, and the way everything ended made the Americans feel like they couldn’t trust their government because they felt like they were always being watched. Through the Patriot Act, the law enforcement agencies and the government are given wide optional powers to acquire information not only from suspected people but also from the law-abiding Americans.
The Patriot Act allows for government investigators to share information on suspected terrorists with other branches of the government much easier than before 9/11 so that tragedy’s like this can be avoided in the future. While intense backlash has been received regarding the Patriot Act’s effects on immigration, and unlawful surveillance, the small negatives that have yet to been proven true much outweigh the good this law can do in protecting the lives of innocent Americans. With the Patriot Act countless lives have been saved without the masses without even realizing they have been saved. According to a speech given by President Bush three years after he signed the law into place, with the Patriot Act a one man terrorist plan turned into