More handpicked essays just for you.
The foreign intelligence surveillance act pros and cons
What are some of the pros and cons of the Patriot Act
What are some of the pros and cons of the Patriot Act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Under the US Patriot Act, or Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, I believe citizens have only been put in danger. The Patriot Act was created to keep terrorism at bay and to launch The United States of America forward. However, it has done nothing but set us back. How can we live in a country where everyone is a suspected criminal? I believe that The Patriot Act does not help control terrorism. Instead, it undermines us as loyal citizens and is a way for the government to abuse their power over the citizens. How are we really free as Americans when our government is keeping a very watchful eye on us? Almost too watchful. The government has access to almost everything. As much as I love being an American I don’t think the US Government is perfect. What if the the government makes a mistake? What if they are really accusing the wrong people? It looks as though the government is resorting to old tactics that will be discussed further in this essay. The Patriot Act is a faulty document that puts the lives of Americans at risk. I also believe that the Patriot Act was put together way too quickly after the tragic event the stirred the nation and brought fear to many peoples hearts on September 11th, 2001. We all believed that our nation had fallen to the ground and there was no way of coming back. However, the government drew up The Patriot Act 45 days after the attacks. Congress seemed to have forgotten the constitutional rights that we were given by our founding fathers a long time ago. The Patriot Act goes against numerous constitutional rights that we have. This including our first, fourth, and sixth amendment rights. As one of the founding fathers, Benjamin... ... middle of paper ... ...American if they want to, without a trial. Under the Library Provisions in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, government agents can get records from librarians, internet service providers, social work agencies, and schools. If an agent thinks that someone is checking out certain books, looking on certain websites, that lead to terrorism, they can make it into a case. They can do this even if they believe the person is a terrorist or not. In conclusion, I believe that the US Patriot Act is putting the United States’s citizens in danger. Accusing and arresting innocent people who are not terrorists will end up making people turn against each other. The government is casting a net so big that it catches not only the bad people, but the good as well, all in the name of 6National Security. Are we really living in a nation that believes in “Liberty and Justice for all?”
The final version of the Brady Act requires mandatory background checks on individuals before a firearm purchase can be made from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer, or importer, unless there is an exception. Section 992 (g) of the Brady Bill prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
How would you feel if everything you did on the internet, every text you sent, and every call you made was seen by someone? That is what the NSA is doing right now. According to Wikipedia, the National Security Agency is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.[1] They have been a controversial topic since the 1970s when it was revealed that they had been wiretapping Americans’ telephones. Their surveillance has only grown since then, even though most Americans disagree with it. [2] The NSA’s domestic surveillance is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of privacy that needs to be stopped.
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 exposed bitter controversies between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. The four bills placed extremely strict regulations on incoming immigrants and prohibited freedom of speech among the people. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, the most notorious Federalists at the time, reasoned that the Alien and Sedition Acts were a necessity in order to keep America safe. However, disputes arose from this because they were many underlying possible true reasons as to why the acts were put into place. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the notorious Democratic-Republicans at the time, disliked what the Federalists stood for and knew that the bills violated the very foundation of basic American rights. The acts
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help
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.
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.
Belanger, CraigNewton, Heather. "Point: The Patriot Act Threatens Liberty." Points Of View: Homeland Security & Civil Liberties (2013): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 9 Feb. 2014.
Lee, M.DiLascio, Tracey M. "Counterpoint: The Patriot Act Is Necessary For National Security." Points Of View: Homeland Security & Civil Liberties (2013): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 14 May 2014.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
First after the 9/11 attacks, the government was taking steps to prevent any such attack in the future. In order to do so, the Patriot Act was introduced. It was to be used to weed out terrorists and help the government locate any suspicious activities. However, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, “while most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.” With the help of the Patriot Act, the government can easily have access to all the information of its citizens, especially Muslims. It can monitor all of their activities and wait for them to do anything
This act authorized the creation of a secret court to regulate and review government requests for FISA orders, called the FISA court (or FISC). With the invention of new technologies like the Internet and growing threats of domestic and international terrorism, the FISC system has undergone reforms to make the process of obtaining these surveillance warrants easier. Laws passed after the September 11th attacks made it easier for the government to request access to this electronic information, harder for telecommunications companies to refuse, “and nearly impossible for them to voice their concerns publicly.” (Mears, Abdullah) And, after revisions made to these laws in 2008, officials now have greater authority to order "mass acquisition" of information, so long as it is relevant to a terror investigation (Mears, Abdullah). These recent events reflect an obvious transition in the NSA surveillance targets from foreign terrorism to domestic activity. Since the establishment of the FISC in 1978, it has denied only eleven out of approximately 35,000 government requests
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation , weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the united states were not very sophisticated many years ago so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people
After the attacks of Sept. 11 President Bush wanted people to be more safe and had to raise the security around things even if that meant motoring the computer and devise people used. That's when the President, Senate and the House of Representatives decided to pass the Patriot act to help stop terrorist and would use the same technology that would be use in drug, fraud, and organized crime. Many critics forgot to tell the people of the Patriot act and how it is helping them not destroying them making people believe this act is only to spy on the people. On May 5, 2004 the Department of Justice charged 310 defendents and since Sept 11, 2001 179 of those have been convicted and sentence to prison. Many people don't understand how well this act is working and have not even read the act fully. Most of the things they have heard are rumors that critics have heard and just