Safety is what our civilized society has always believed in. Secure environment is that aspect of life which develops one’s personality and mentality. 9/11, the Holocaust and Syrian refugee crisis proves that it is better to be secure because you can live your life without any fear. Humans tend to give up some freedom in order to be secure as we look back at our history. Mass murder of Jews during the Holocaust era in the 1930s is one of the references from history. German Jews were hostages of the Nazis which led to mass migration of Jews to different parts of the world. The Jews, seeking a secure place to dwell, gave up their freedom to live in their own country for their own safety. Leaving their country was a different trauma but being safe from the Nazi hostility was a sigh of relief for every migrated Jew. Also, they had freedom in other countries which was all due to the result of being secure from the Nazis, leading to a fearless life. …show more content…
On the day of September 11th 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center changed the principles on which the United States had stood for since it was founded over two centuries ago. After the terrorist attacks, the United States government launched a massive data collection program which collected internet logs, cell phone records of citizens, violating the freedom of privacy. But, giving up the freedom of privacy, American citizens were safe from terrorist attacks after 9/11. USA, the country known for liberty and freedom choose the path of restricting freedom in order to keep its citizens safe from another terror attack. Even in a country where the notion of “liberty” and ”freedom” was born took a course of safety, giving up some extent of personal
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently. From there, Penenberg explains that for years before September 11th, Americans were comfortable with cameras monitoring them doing everyday activities.
Is it a bird? Is it a Plane? Or is it a Hitler?: Holocaust Vs. 9/11
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
The holocaust was a time of destruction or slaughter on a mass scale caused by fire or nuclear war. During the holocaust millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis during WWII. The Berlin Wall was a time in which a barrier was constructed in 1961 to separate East Berlin from west Berlin. I believe that the holocaust and the Berlin Wall made great impacts to many and had many alikes. They both had similar situations and in both the Germans were involved as was the killing.
AMERICAN HOLOCAUST The other side of the story to our great American history is not as pretty as they teach us in grade school. The American Holocaust by David Stannard is a novel full of live excerpts from eyewitnesses to the genocide of the American Indians. He goes as far as to describe what life was most likely like before Europeans came to the Americas and obliterated the "Paradise" so described. Columbus even wrote how beautiful the places were in which he committed acts against the Natives.
The word “Holocaust”, was originated from the words “Holos” meaning whole, and “kaustos” meaning burned. To Adolf Hitler, Jews were an “inferior” race. After years of Nazi rule, Hitler’s “final solution” came under the cover of world war, with mass killing centers constructed in the concentration camps. Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma Gypsies, Priests and Pastors, homosexuals, and black children were all victims of the holocaust. Most of the victims left were from other countries. 6,000 Jehovah's witnesses, over 15,00 homosexuals, 400 “colored” children, and over 5,000,000 jews were killed.
The Holocaust was one of the most tragic and harmful things to befall the human race. Yet not a lot of people understand just how terrible it was. But if we don't know about it, how will we know if history will ever repeat itself or not? We need to know because we can't let it happen ever again. There is so much to know as well. From the life of Anne Frank to World War II as a whole, there are so many things involved its unbelievable. But what exactly is the full depth of the Holocaust, and what was all a part of it.
While this paper is an objective one that will not take sides on the issue of the Patriot Act, it will provide a look at the criticisms due to initially writing on why it was originally passed in the first place. The main concern that people have about the Patriot Act stems from the belief that it strips away at fundamental civil liberties. Many people feel that the Patriot Act compromises a person’s right to privacy which has been supported through precedent in Supreme Court cases, despite it not being explicitly stated in the Constitution (Grabianowski 2007 1). Arguably, this has been the constant focal point people have against the Patriot Act as not everyone wants to sacrifice their right to privacy, even if it is for safety reasons that are meant to help all people. Still, this has been a valid point of contention among the public, especially after the Snowden NSA leak. There is also the civil liberty that citizens are free from unreasonable searches and seizures. This civil liberty is a point of contention for many pundits as they believe the Patriot Act compromise it. Other civil liberties that the Patriot Act is argued to violate include detaining witnesses and terrorist suspects without granting them access to lawyers, or even hearings or any formal charges (Grabianowski 2007 1). These are seen as going against the Fifth and Sixth Amendments which cover the rights
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
Of course, a certain level of safety is necessary in order to maintain a livable society. We must abridge total freedom in order to assure a maximum amount. No one can live comfortably in a country with constant terrorist activity. At the same time, however, no one can live comfortably in a country with constant security checkpoints. Somehow, we must find a balance: security measures must be thorough, but restricted; enforced, but monitored; and advantageous, but just. On top of that, laws must be understood and approved by the general public. If a security measure is determined to be helpful and not overly pervasive, and if it reduces crime significantly and in proportion to the infringement of rights, then the security measure should be acceptable.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
The government gives each American citizen a set of unalienable rights that protect them from the government’s power. These rights cannot be broken, yet the government violates the Fourth Amendment daily to find ways to spy on the American public under the guise of protecting against terrorism. In 2007 President Obama said the American administration “acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our securities – it is not.” Americans need to understand that their privacy is worth the fight. The people need to tell their neighbors, their congressmen, and their senators that they will not allow their internet privacy to be violated by needless spying. American citizens deserve the rights given to them and need to fight for the right to keep them by changing privacy laws to include Internet privacy.
A refugee is defined as an individual who has been forced to leave their country due to political or religious reasons, or due to threat of war or violence. There were 19.5 million refugees worldwide at the end of 2014, 14.4 million under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), around 2.9 million more than in 2013. The other 5.1 million Palestinian refugees are registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). With the displacement of so many people, it is difficult to find countries willing to accept all the refugees. There are over 125 different countries that currently host refugees, and with this commitment comes the responsibility of ensuring these refugees have access to the basic requirements of life; a place to live, food to eat, and a form of employment or access to education. Currently, the largest cause of refugees is the Syrian civil war, which has displaced over 2.1 million people. As a country of relative wealth, the United States should be able to provide refuge for many refugees, as well as provide monetary support to the refugees that they are not able to receive.