People who support the NSA in their quest to access private information argue that nothing should stand against security, even privacy, especially when the lives of innocent human beings is at stake. Their argument extends to saying that without security, a country’s development is crippled; consequently, the National Security Agency should take whatever measures it deems necessary in order to ensure that the homeland of the United States of America is safe and secure. Those who root for the NSA, support their argument of the strong claim by Obama in response to Edward Snowden ¬ “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this, information not just in the United States, but, in some cases, threats here in Germany,” President Obama, Berlin June 2013, assuring the effectiveness of NSA methods . One NSA biased website
In the United States the information they use is intended for the good, but who is to say the things intended for good could never turn into injustices. As modern technology progresses, there is a chance the technology can be used to restrict basic freedom and civil rights. With the risk of losing important freedoms, we must fully understand the importance of new
These improvements are aimed to monitor suspicious behaviors and hopefully prevent future terrorist attacks like 9/11. This topic is highly controversial. Opponents of the Patriot Act argue that this act restricts the right to privacy which is promised to citizens by the founding fathers and is stated in the Constitution. Supporters argue that the Patriot Act is a necessary response to 9/11 and provides our law enforcement with the means to eradicate potential terrorist behaviors before they occur. Truly, the Patriot Act is one of the most positive government or public response to the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
They did not mind to give up some of their freedom for safety, which is sickening. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “ Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Americans cherish their freedom and liberties. Yet they seem to be very willing to give it up when times get tough and fear invades the American psyche. No bill is as controversial to American values as the Patriot Act. It takes away freedom and security from all citizens.
Another case was Korematsu v. United States where the court ruled against Korematsu’s rights. The court stated although they are important the court needs to protect the country against espionage especially since it was during a time of “emergency and peril.” I believe that under regular circumstances the court will rule in favor of protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties but in times of crisis and war the court will do whatever it has to, to protect the country. The Terry Stop in my opinion violates a person's rights as they have not actually committed a crime and the officials are just acting on “probable cause”. I’d
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion” (Washington, 1796). This statement is key because it displays how religious principals and characteristics promotes the protection for property, reputation, and life. Furthermore, without religion and its obligated principals, people will most likely abandon oaths, which are significant requirements in the justice system. Moreover, Washington wanted to express that if the people have integrity, honor, and commitment then they will be able to understand the meaning of respecting the laws and justice system. Also, how religion and its principles lead to the concept of morality and cannot be sustained without
W. Bush said “Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend.” OTHER - The police are, and always haves been, the protectors of our freedoms- we need non corrupt officers to be able to do that - It is such a big issue, that October 22 has been named the National Anti Police Brutality Day - Some policy officers take advantage of the power/authority they have - In many cases citizens have not taken legal action against the corrupted police which is necessary for an overall end to the brutality to be achieved - The law states that we are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent - Cops receive an unfair favorable treatment when it comes to not getting indicted - Police generally believe and act as if they are above the law COUNTERS - Counter argument 1: but the police are our authority and they are just trying to protect us? They are using excessive force when it is unnecessary and this is more harmful than
I am a pacifist; I am not completely against war and violence, it is a means to self preservation of the person and the state. War can be used to fight against legitimate threats such as thieves, invading countries, and terrorists. Compulsory service in the military is a breach of my civil liberties and personal philosophy. That is a direct threat to freedom. I would be for a draft (such as in World War Two, as a means of self preservation) as a legitimate government activity to protect the country.
Granted, it was created to help protect American lives from extremists looking to inflict harm on innocent lives it should still not take away the rights of the majority when trying to hunt for a minority. Not all Americans are out looking to cause domestic terrorism, so the government should not be looking at them in such a manner. Madison and Jefferson could not have predicted such an action as 9/11 perpetrated on American soil, but they were right when they established that the majority should rule and minorities should be protected. In modern times it seems as though the script may have been flipped, and the majority could be considered to be the one being
In reference to a bill introduced to Congress forbidding the use of tactics defined by torture; The United States government must consider all of the ethical options and possibilities they have. Torturing anyone is morally unethical but allowing terrorists to murder innocent civilians is against every moral we, as humans possess. As morally just people America needs to find the exceptions in which we are willing to use torture in countering terrorism. As leaders of the free world our government has the responsibility to do everything in their power to protect innocent people and gain the needed information to do so. In order to win the war on terror, officials will occasionally have no choice but to torture the terrorists withholding information to prevent these attacks on humanity.