Either from other countries, or manufacture weapons themselves. For Example, in the article, “The Assault Weapon Ban Should Not Be Reinstated”, the author states, “ Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws on earth, yet a large number of weapons are smuggled in from other places.” Take this quote for example, mexico has strict gun laws, but there is still weapons getting into Mexico. People in America would do that. Another example from the article “Argument Against Gun Control”, the author states, “This is the newest iteration of the popular talking point that gun laws cannot work because criminals won 't follow them. As Marco Rubio often proclaimed during the primary campaign: "My skepticism about gun laws is criminals don 't follow the law.” People won’t follow laws.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows U.S. intelligence agencies to acquire foreign intelligence information by monitoring foreign persons in the USA and abroad. This act ensures that intelligence agencies can respond in time to terminate a security threat. The most important part of this act, the Section 702 forbids deliberate monitoring of US citizens and their communication. Technically NSA has been violating this act ever since it has been enacted in 2008 because, as we know, they have been monitoring all US citizenry. NSA hides the fact that they are monitoring on US citizens without the warrant as they find some connection between the person monitored and some illegal activity to justify their monitoring.
Once information enters the online data bases, it is impossible to erase. The data can be used in court to draw incorrect conclusions and put someone in prison for good. The U.S. government does keep tabs on its citizens. John Simpson, a privacy project director says, “I don’t really want to live in a total surveillance state where big brother knows everything I do and has all that information at its fingertips.” Edward Snowden released this information out of concern because he thought it was dangerous. The government debated about Snowden being considered a traitor or patriot of the country.
Now although the office filled the warrant out he didn’t specify which unit in a multi-family housing unit was supposed to be search. Unfortunately, the police raided the wrong house or residence, which in returned caused them to kick down the door as well as terrorize an innocent family. Therefore, an innocent person could have gotten killed which has happened before in New York. However, the requirement that the location of a search warrant be specific isn’t “a technicality” but a core principle of the Fourth Amendment (washingtonpost.com. n.d.).
The operation of a drone is done remotely thus creating a distance between the operator and the target. This raises the question of the drone operator as a legal combatant. The operators of drones hardly fit the criteria for a combatant under IHL and may be too disconnected from the target in terms of distance and time that it raises the question of his legitimacy as a combatant (Sterio 2012). International humanitarian law seeks to limit the means of warfare, including by limiting certain technologies through treaties. It addresses itself to the specific nature of what drones and other military technology may be permitted to do in the military theatre.
Nowadays, many people in the United States spend too much time discussing the balance between security and liberty. They criticize the government and condemn the security measures. However, they don't want to admit that many terrorist attacks were prevented by wiretapping, monitoring the internet, and so on. Professor Levinson states that it is “spying”. I would call it “a desire to defend the people, to protect their lives and health from the terrorist
Some people might say that we need a gun to protect ourselves in the United States, but there are actually various ways to protect ourselves instead of using a gun according to the article, “How Americans Protect Themselves from Crime.” Transition to Conclusion: before the government legislates about the gun control law, we need to be the spearhead that is awake to this problem deeply and carefully. Restate Thesis: I am convinced that the entire civilian should not own guns to prevent the gun violence, and only government officers must be able to own guns. Review Main Points: we realize that erroneous gun possession contributes to horrible gun accidents. To protect ourselves from the death, we possess our guns, but these guns can be the boomerang that brings the death back to our families and us. Today, we should imprint the solution that I suggest today.
Presumably many misfortunes could have been avoided in the movie had Quincy, Raheem, and Steel not followed Bishop’s plan to rob the store or had one of them taken action after the incident. The crew’s conversation before robbing the store goes as follows “everybody got their gloves? Yeah, man. Ol' man Quiles is in there by himself. Let's do this.” Robbing the convenience store was a major turning point in the movie that caused a domino effect of events that could have been avoided.
But what if you had no choice. What if you are unknowingly being invaded of your privacy. What we all have in common is the feeling we get when people like the government abuses our rights and invade our privacy. People like George Orwell explain how the government uses tactics to invade people 's privacy without them knowing at times. George Orwell’s big hit “Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)” has a very important line that impacts the book and
The police and news channels broadcasted the warnings against the predator, for they feared the lives of prospective victims, yet at the same time, he was allowed into the society. If the system feared for the attacks to reoccur then why did they allow him to be released? Why in the first place would we release such a man into society and risk the lives of women. In spite of having the four pillars of the justice system, why do we fail to prevent such crimes? When will the court realize that this man, among many, is a threat and perhaps deserves a real substantial prison sentence?
Every American is being monitored even without reasonable cause for the government to be monitoring them. The intentions of both acts were to monitor Americans who are supporting the terrorist and help fight the terrorist crimes within our country. The problem is that the government is over stepping that line and is monitoring everyone’s phone data. Phone data is not a reasonable source to gain suspicion of someone who a terrorist or helping a terrorist. Washington Post has posted on May 24, 2015 that the FBI confirms that no major terrorism cases were caught form the Patriot phone data collection (Krieger, 2015) The American Civil Liberties Union filed a law suit against the government in 2013.
The question posed in today’s reading was whether an embedded agent should have carried out the assassination of a government official in order to further an espionage investigation. Admiral Turner pulled the plug on the investigation by not green-lighting the hit.1 While I agree with him in this case, there are more factors at play here than the mere legality of the agent’s pending act (assassination), or even the life of the government official weighed against the value of the investigation. Whether or not Admiral Turner made the “right” call comes down to a question of rational response to a moral imperative, which is where things get sticky, especially when authors start using phrases like “any means necessary” when commenting on the proposed
They all stated that we as American’s should not worry about the government looking into our business if we have nothing to hide. However, on June 12, 2013 Rand Paul explained the importance best when he stated” In the United States, we are supposed to have a government that is limited with its parameters established by our constitution. This notion that the federal government can monitor everyone’s phone data is a major departure from how Americans have traditionally viewed the role of the government. If this is acceptable practice, as the white house and many in both parties now say it is, then there are literally no constitutional protections that can be guaranteed anymore to citizens. In the name of security, the Constitution has become negotiable.” Because of this, the American
What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure in terms of preventing terrorism? We have studied in the past readings about misuse of intelligence gathering agencies on US citizens. Operation CHAOS was directed at anti-war protesters. This is not the agenda today of domestic security; the aim is to prevent terrorism. Lawfully speaking, the FISA court which we have read about provides a legal framework to conduct intelligence gathering on US persons.
“The Patriot Act broadly undermines the rights of all Americans. It reduces judicial oversight of a host of investigative measures, including wiretaps, expands the government 's ability to track individuals ' Internet use and gives federal officials expansive new powers that are in no way limited to investigating terrorist crimes. ( thenation) It authorizes an end run around the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct wiretaps and searches in criminal investigations, without probable cause of a crime, as long as the government claims that it also seeks to gather foreign intelligence--an authority that is particularly questionable in light of recent disclosures from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the FBI has