The moment that the Twin Towers fell in New York, America became destined for change. In the wake of these attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was quickly passed through congress, and signed by then-president, George W. Bush. The act itself gives the FBI and other government agencies the ability to do and use certain methods, many of which are already used by other law enforcement organizations, to help prevent future terrorist attacks. Since then, this piece of legislation has been the center of much debate and controversy. But, there is ample reason to believe that the Patriot Act is needed and effective. The Patriot Act has been used effectively because it has extensive supervision, is completely constitutional, and has helped to protect
“If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.” Representatives, keep this quote in mind today, as President Barack Obama was absolutely correct in saying so. Now Thomas Hobbes’s theory of the social contract is clear, in which the people must sacrifice a portion of their rights for protection by the government. But this sacrifice does not and cannot have a definition. Times change, and with it, so must security measures. With the rise of the digital age, the monitoring of this information becomes crucial to security. That is why we must let the NSA be, and that is why I must negate this resolution.
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.
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
This is brought to light in the book when Montag and Faber are talking on the phone and Faber says, “This is some sort of trap! I can’t talk to just anyone on the phone!” (Bradbury, 1991, p.76) Faber’s fear of talking on the phone stems from him knowing that someone listening. The current U.S. government does listen in on the phone calls of its citizens. News journalist Anne Flaherty wrote, “The U.S. government long has enjoyed access to phone networks and high-speed Internet traffic under the U.S. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to catch suspected criminals and terrorists.” (Flaherty) She illustrates the government excusing its actions for the better of its citizens. In Fahrenheit 451, the government gets rid of people who are a threat. The government classifies if people are threats by if they have books. The U.S. government does the same thing. Granted they do not blatantly go to people’s houses and burn them down. It does, however, incarcerate anyone who has leaked information that the government does not want people to know. Edward Snowden is the perfect example
On September 11, 2001 the world came to a stand still as a terroristic attack targeting our country killed 2,977 people. As fear ran high in every American house hold, the government quickly acted and on October 26 President George W. Bush passed the USA PATRIOT Act. The full title, "Uniting and Strenghtening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", suggest how the government quickly acted in response to the new threat that we were experianceing. Although some may argue that it violates our civil liberties, the Patriot Act serves as an asset to help protect U.S. citizens by stopping terrorist attacks, giving the law enforcement tools to make investigations easier, and increases national security.
Socrates was a true believer that true pleasure only comes when individuals live a moral life. He believed that an individual’s inner life, or the soul, is the most important part of life. Each person must keep his or her soul healthy, by seeking truth, self-knowledge, justice, and goodness. Socrates believed that any soul in search of fame, wealth, and power becomes ignorant, sickly, and weak (Claudia, 270). He was concerned with strengthening his inner self by examining and criticizing it. He was not concerned with finding what people would seek since this could only lead to a weak, sick, and ignorant soul. Therefore, Socrates remained committed to his guns and never told the court what it wanted to hear.
This means government agencies, like the NSA, don't need to have probable cause that's required to get a warrant. (CITATIONS)This is similar to 1984 because everyone is getting surveillanced without cause or permission. Many people will be saying that this is an ill comparison and that the patriot act isn’t akin to 1984 in this way, but if you think about it the patriot act is worse. The inner party tracks their citizens through the telescreen. Telescreens aren't perfect though. In Winston’s house there is a spot where he can't be tracked, in loud public places you can't be heard, and in the homes of proles, who make up the majority of the population, there are no telescreens. Now compared to what our government tracks, our cell phone and internet usage telescreens aren't that bad. People carry their cell phones everywhere. They are mobile and track where you are at. Everyone has them and can afford them meaning our government can gather twice as much information about 90% more of their citizens than Big Brother
There is a saying: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” As long as there are people in the world with the intention to do harm, or crime, (which unfortunately is a great percent of mankind), there will be abuse and corruption. The Criminal Justice System was implemented to protect against such acts against citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The implementation of the U.S. Patriot Act in 2001 is an example of such massive abuse of power that has ultimately led to countless unjust arrests, unjust government surveillance on citizens, and most importantly it has stripped U.S. citizens of their civil liberties.
In the United States of America, there is a plethora of extravagant political parties with which one can associate. Obviously, due to the nature of the scholarship at hand, the reader of this written work is a Republican. Is there any thought ever given to the immensity of the political
NEXT STEPS Has surveillance reform gone far enough? Hardly. Obama has taken the first steps, but the government should take six more to enhance public confidence in surveillance programs. First, the intelligence community should do even more to increase transparency. IC on the Record is a good start, but it is mostly reactive, providing context to programs that Snowden had already leaked. The intelligence community should continue to release as much as it possibly can about surveillance programs without compromising sources and methods—even if they have not been leaked. Given Snowden’s widespread public acclaim, coming clean about such controversial intelligence programs is not just good government, but also provides the surest way to preserve vital intelligence capabilities. With greater transparency, intelligence agencies can stay one step ahead of future leakers and earn back the trust of a skeptical public. The United States should also pivot from
With the advancement of surveillance technology, many citizens feel that their privacy rights have been violated due to homeland security and the threat of terrorism. Throughout history our government has implemented domestic and international surveillance as a way to safeguard our society from other countries. Now the question that seems to arise within our society is if the government is infringing on our civil liberties? Or is this indeed protecting our nation from imminent danger?
The main issue in the Snowden controversy is the conflicting rights of private individuals and the US government with regard to the use of telecommunications and the internet. There are ethical issues surrounding this controversy and the most applicable ethical approach for this case is “Ethics by Rights Approach”.
To be specific, after terrible incident occurred in September 11, 2001, government of United States enacted the Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001 in the name of declaring war with terrorism. (위키피디아) The law grants the right to Federal Bureau of Investigation to profile people who fit certain stereotypes so that potential crime and potential terror can be prevented.