So why should I give up these rights that have been long fought for. We come from a diverse nation and we should be able to find other ways to fight terrorism other than sacrificing our liberties. Our civil liberties take precedence. The rights of the people in America should not be invaded upon because these rights are warranted. If our rights are invaded it not only oversteps the
Protection is something the American colonies do not have at the moment and I do not see Great Britain providing this protection for them. Therefore it is because of that that I support the colonies decision to be independent. Some people may be against the colonies independence because in order to be independent a war has to occur which means lives would be lost. Yet, I believe that either way lives are in danger of being lost whether the colonies seek independence or not because the colonies lack of protection will lead to lives lost. Therefore it is important for the colonies to seek independence.
The official 9/11 commission report actually denies this claim that Al Qaeda was funded by Saudi Arabia. This lie is one of many that can be found in the official report which strengthens the idea that the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The sheer amount of lies and omissions detected in the official report leads to the assertion that the government did not put in enough time or resources into making the report as accurate as they tried to portray to the public. The reasons for these discrepancies is unknown but it certainly supports the narrative that the government may have motives for trying to deceive its own
People against the Patriot Act believed it violated the citizen 's right to the Fourth Amendment; while others made a highly controversial point with the allowance for the FBI to make a procedure of any tangible things, including: books, records, papers, documents, and other items for an investigation against international terrorism (EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162). (n.d.). With access to tangible objects such as books and records, libraries felt the Patriot Act targeted them. Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act allows the government to secretly obtain library records without any reason to believe a person of suspicion are involved in any illegal activity.
Perhaps to capture a memory or an unusual event, and sometimes other people in the background. Are random photographs an invasion of privacy? The point is intelligence collectors are not interested in the daily communications of millions of citizens--they are interested in collecting information on terrorist and criminal activity. If this is the price we have to pay in order to make our country a safer place to live, then people shouldn 't complain. If the alternative is another attack like 9//11, maybe the anti-USA Patriot activists might think twice about their civil liberties.
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. Through the Patriot Act, the law enforcement agencies and the government are given wide optional powers to acquire information not only from suspected people but also from the law-abiding Americans.
There are people who think it’s a great idea because police and catch criminals easier. In the other hand people think it is invading our privacy. The ACLU believes that the government is invading our privacy and they should not be able to search our phone without a warrant and should not know the location we visit or currently at. The can also get you contacts,
We could also help with making the peace talks more conductive rather than just staying the same. I think we should encourage peace instead of going to war. If we encourage peace to the very dangerous rebel organization then we will not have to risk thousands and thousands of lives in the United States just because we are ally with the country of Aggressivia. So, I think the best option is to encourage peace because it will help both countrys at the same time. We woud not have to raise the taxes and make the citizens of America mad.
The people are giving up some of their right so the government will protect them. The first amendment is “freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition” The first amendment is similar to the social contract because in a way the government is promising to protect you in exchange for some of your rights. But if you think about it your free speech is limited, you can’t just say whatever you desire like shouting out “there’s a bomb” in a crowded place that’s illegal because safety is major.
Another key reason that undocumented immigrants should get a “path to citizenship” is that we are tearing families apart. As has made clear Upfront,2016,Senator Charles E. Shumer “The status quo is unsustainable. Without reform, our immigration law threaten to tear apart families and force our government to expend precious resources to deport millions.” Senator Charles E. Shumer’s point is that if we tear families apart we are making them afraid as it is right now, and we are forcing them today to leave and families now would spend time alone with children or just alone when their lover leaves. Today it’s still going on and us bring and forcing them to leave it hurt them and the others around them. Of course, it is possible to disagree with the view that it tears families apart and instead argue that they need to come with papers so they won 't be deported and if they don 't want to be torn apart from family they can stay back.
This poster uses Ethos- to appeal to the American people. It is created based on the ethic that you do not want your country to loose the war, therefore you will not share any sensitive information. This make the person fell a duty, and responsibility to keep american citizens safe, and you as a citizen should appeal to the country 's need for a trust worthy citizen. Since an argument by definition is when some makes a statement on what they believe is right, I would have to think that this poster uses an argument to make its point across. Meaning that the government believes that the best way to win this war is to keep the American people from providing useful information to the enemy.
"In time of war, the lot is silent " Cicero. The U.S government should have the right to violate citizens ' civil liberties in the name of national security, but only when necessary. Civil liberties are fundamental individual rights and freedoms which are protected by law against governmental interference. Some example of civil liberties are the 1st amendment and the right to privacy. National security is protecting and countries territory and people from invasion and other threats.
These are the people that will be easily influenced by the government. If the government claims something and backs it up with a few facts and a whole bunch of lies, chances are, the public will not bother to check up on it and support the government’s claims. That may be okay, but if the Congress doesn’t even read thoroughly everything they are signing off on, who is to say that what they are doing is good for the country or even follows the Constitution? Keeping the public, and sometimes even the Congress, ignorant is a great way to keep them united and at peace. “We know more than we did two weeks ago, but there are still entire government agencies whose names and missions are unknown, and programs so secret that Congress votes to fund them without knowing what they do.” (O’Hehir) With Congress being kept in the dark, the government programs can do whatever they feel is necessary in the name of the Constitution without burdening more people of what they do.
If the police can hack into everybody’s computer without a warrant, it would be the same as the police being able to search peoples houses without probable cause. Its not just people who don’t agree with the ruling. A Massachusetts court found that the FBI’s evidence was invalid due to it relying on a warrant that was did not apply to the