National security has altered several of our amendments taking away our freedom of speech, freedom of unreasonable search and seizures, freedom of being held without charge, and much more. One of the most well known amendments is freedom of speech. However, after 9/11 it 's not so much a “freedom” as it is a “privilege”. “The Patriot Act broadly expands the official definition of terrorism so that many domestic groups that engage in nonviolent civil disobedience could...find themselves labeled as terrorists” (Eroding Liberty). So even though we are told we have the right to say what we want, if we say something the government does not like, we are classified as a “terrorist”.
What the Patriot Act does is it provides us with a tool to strengthen the ability that the government has to stop terrorist attacks from happening on U.S. soil. What the act does is remove obstacles to investigate terrorism, it has made stricter laws for terrorist any one that might have aided them, it has allowed information between law enforcement to be easier to share, and it has also updated laws to keep in pace with the advances in technology (Anderson). As every other subject concerning a topic such as this, which not only affects a group of people but an entire nation, there is controversy and opposition. The question is wheather or not the Patriot Act has really worked to stop terrorism. As data compiled by The Heritage
To begin with, Counterterrorism measures such as Biometric data collection would not flag Adam Smith as a homegrown terrorist. Even though Homeland Security’s advanced data collection and evaluation methods from have had outstanding triumphs with many foreign terrorists entering the United States. In the same fashion, administered programs such techniques are probable to yield false positives due to temporary or permanently distorted physical injuries. Furthermore, the homegrown terrorist in the U.S. is typically obedient to the laws with authentic proofs of identification with transgressions or not has not been alerted by Homeland Security as a terrorist.
One argument made by Senator Robert M. La Follette was “I think all men recognize that in time of war the citizen must surrender some rights for the common good which he is entitled to enjoy in time of peace. But, sir, the right to control their own Government according to constitutional forms is not one of the rights that the citizens of this country are called upon to surrender in time of war.” He does not agree with taking away the right of free speech. There was a cartoon drawn that states “Swat the Fly but Use Common Sense.” This cartoon shows that we wanted to win the war, but we should not take away the important rights of the citizens. There was a Japanese citizen of the United States named Korematsu. He was born in the United States, but his parents were born in Japan.
Lastly, McCormack states that “This type of legislation threatens our ability to work for change within society and acts to silence voices of dissent” (McCormack). This is arguable because the act doesn’t restrict freedom, it protects liberties. The Patriot Act is justified by the 9/11 attacks because it has helped put dozens of terrorism attempts in the ground, it has broken down communication barriers that were built between the branches of the government, and overall has heightened every
“ They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?” this statement weakens the spirits within the colonist due to the intolerable acts. Although Britain thought the act would help them strengthen it was undermined by the presence of increasing the military activities. According to henry no matter what happens the war will come, “ The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it sir, let it come.” The main point of the speech is that the colonists must go to war to protect their own freedom.
government must acknowledge the program’s mistakes and correct them to bring them in line with international law and a smarter strategy. Part of this is acknowledging the civilian deaths caused by strikes and apologizing to victims’ families. The U.S. has taken steps to reform the program, reportedly tightening the rules for targeting (along the lines of Boyle’s suggestion to only target High-Value enemies). But without transparency, there’s no way for the public to know what is actually happening and to evaluate the program’s success, except leaks. The war will continue in secret, any ineffectiveness hidden, except to the innocent
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.
I am in favor of the patriot ACT. I know many people think, it is kind of violation of the privacy, but the patriot ACT make the U.S. a better place to live. There are countries, which try to do some damage to the U.S., and they will do anything to accomplish it.The patriot ACT made it easier for the law enforcement whenever they needed to arrest someone, whether is a drug dealer, a terror organization or someone who tries to make some damages through technology. These acts can have huge impact on the people and the society, law enforcement should act faster than the enemies in order to get them before they get what they want. Maybe some people think, making an arrest without having the court permission is a type of violation of privacy,