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
Now don’t get me wrong things like the patriot act are necessary for the safety of our nations but I believe the NSA has been taking things much too far. The NSA has been purposely intruding SMS, texts, calls, and almost anything that is considered over the web interaction. Not only is this causing problems for people right here at home but is also making enemies overseas. A great example of this is the NSA spying scandal in Germany. On July 10th 2014 as told by several news site including my citing of NBC news  that Germany demanded that the top U.S. intelligence official leave immediately over spying allegations.
We may believe that Bush made a poor decision. However, what alternative did he have? What alternative does Obama have? If we simply say the threat is the fear of tyranny from a president swollen with power from foreign wars, we miss the perverse result our constitution has created. In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue.
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”.
It suggests that the government, but more specifically Congress, puts gun violence above the means of fighting against it. Even more so, it shows that gun violence reins over attempts to hinder it in any way and how Congress is weak because it consistently fails to effectively do anything about gun violence in America. However, congressional gridlock can be more than Congress’ refusal to pass laws that are important The United States’ wellbeing. It can be the slow-moving process of passing a law or bill to benefit Americans. For example, immigration reform has been being considered since past President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, as stated by The Washington Post (Nakamura, O’Keefe 4).
It always results in the loss of civil liberties, sexual freedom, and privacy. It increases the risk of destruction of the society and its people. It usually comes to be after a traumatic event and/or shifts in control, which ends in totalitarian governments or bureaucracies, as mentioned before. The conflicts almost always evolve because the hero has been a victim of the dystopia and wants to rebel and help others. The protagonist realize by themselves, or with help, how wrong it is and do not want to live in that repressive society any
744 seemed to have been destined to overhaul the U.S. immigration system. Nevertheless it seems to have repeated the fate of its predecessors, other legislative efforts to address the pressing issue of illegal immigration in the country. What stood in the way of the successful passage of the bill by the House? Why didn’t massive support of interest groups and general public of the immigration reform secure its adoption? Can we argue that technocracy and confrontation between issue networks of supporters of “path to citizenship” and strengthening border security stall the
For a time, there was monitoring international phone calls made by U.S. citizens, and soon Bush administration started seeking to destroy Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations using military forces. He said, “They saw liberty and thought they saw weakness. And now they will see defeat.” In 2002, Bush announced that they would be use military force if necessary to prevent further threats from terrorists or rogue states, especially any that possessed weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush mended our country from this devastating event and lead us to a stronger today. His leadership to me defines political courage in all aspects because he chose to do what he thought was right for our country and never backing down for what he believed
During times of conflict, the American government often sets limitations on civil liberties. For example, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Recently, after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, the government has been attempting to strengthen its control on the growing terrorism threat by increasing surveillance on the American people. Some people do not see this increase in security as a violation of their civil liberties. However, these restrictions infringe on rights specifically included in the Constitution and therefore are not admissible in relation to the “war on terror”.
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.