Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain what the usa patriot act stand for
Explain what the usa patriot act stand for
Explain what the usa patriot act stand for
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Explain what the usa patriot act stand for
Introduction The USA Patriot Act came about after 9/11. The Act remains in use today with some slight modifications. On the other hand, FISA has been in use since the mid-1970s. Both Acts are highly controversial and are foreign to the average citizen. National security always requires a balancing act between freedom and security. As the saying goes, freedom is not free. This paper will describe the primary elements and / or components of the USA Patriot Act and FISA and research how the media has conveyed the main messages and elements of both acts. It will go on to discuss the media portrayal and general public perception of these acts. The paper will close with a discussion based on whether I believe the nation is more secure with these acts in place. The USA Patriot Act The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, otherwise known as the USA Patriot Act of 2001, President Bush signed into law October 26, 2001. The act is a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Not without controversy, the act allowed for surveillance of citizens and non-citizens alike all to detect and prevent terrorist activities within the borders of the United States. It extended powers to the Justice Department deemed necessary to combat what “had not existed before. The presence of terrorists within national borders along with the need to apprehend and prosecute them, hopefully before rather than after they acted” (Rouse, 2010). The broad reach of the act allowed for message interception, telephone line taps or any form of communication deemed relevant in the ongoing fight against terrorist activity in the United States. Foreign Intelligence Su... ... middle of paper ... ...n Surveillance Intelligence Act. Retrieved from https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa Reporters Committee. (n.d.). Introduction - Criminal proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-criminal-proceedings Reporters Committee. (2013). Reporters Committee, media organizations challenge FISA court ruling on right to challenge secrecy. Retrieved from http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-media-organizations-challenge-fisa-court-ruling-right-challenge-secrecy Rouse, M. (2010). Patriot Act. Retrieved from http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/definition/Patriot-Act Zuckerman, J., Bucci, S., & Carafano, J. (2014). 60 Terrorist plots since 9/11: Continued lessons in domestic counterterrorism. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism
In her essay “We should relinquish some liberty in exchange for security,” Mona Charen, a columnist and political analyst, speaks on the issue of security in the United States of America. She uses many significant techniques in her essay to persuade her readers of her argument. However, I feel that her essay fails to make a great argument because she relies heavily on assumptions, misses opportunities to appeal to pathos and ethos, and overall uses a degrading tone.
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.
Hanrahan, Mark. "National Security: Ten Years After September 11 Attacks, U.S. Is Safe But Not Safe Enough." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 Sept. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
David Grayson once said that "Commandment Number One of any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different". Difference, or individuality, however, may not be possible under a dictatorial government. Aldous Huxley's satirical novel Brave New World shows that a government-controlled society often places restraints upon its citizens, which results in a loss of social and mental freedom. These methods of limiting human behavior are carried out by the conditioning of the citizens, the categorical division of society, and the censorship of art and religion.
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 U.S.A Patriot Act, which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, was an act of congress that was signed by President George W. Bush in October of 2001. The act was in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. The act is meant to help government agencies identify and prevent possible terrorist attacks and sponsorship of terrorist groups (Justice, 2015). The law has many pros, but as well countless cons. Some of the pros of the Patriot Act are it assist’s law enforcement in their investigations of terrorist activity, it speeds up investigations on terrorist activity, and it increases security measures. The cons of the act are the amount of authority
The Patriot Act was signed into law by President George Bush on the 26th October 2001. The act is an Act of congress whose title is a ten letter acronym which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (USA PATRIOT Act 2001). The Act was enacted 45 days following the September 11 attacks. The September 11 attacks on the world trade center in New York catalyzed the enactment of a legislation that would provide law enforcement with greater powers to investigate and prevent terrorist activities. The spirit of the act is founded on the notion of providing all that is required by law enforcement, within the limits of the constitution, to effectively combat the war on terror.
These types of montitoring have a good side and a bad side. The Patriot Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001 after 9/11. Its backronym, U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T., which stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.
The Patriot Act has prevented terrorism inside the United States in numerous cases. It has updated anti-terrorism laws to counter new technology, increased penalties for the acts of terror, and has helped decrypt information between law enforcement and the community. The Patriot
With America left on its heels President Bush and Congress signed the USA Patriot Act into law in October 2001. The Patriot
The Patriot Act’s goal was to “Unit and Strengthen America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” One of the main goals of this act was to change some of the restrictions Clinton put on law officials. After the act was passed, intelligence officials and law officials were allowed to share information with each other (Patriot Act). The U.S. Secretary General gained more power through the Patriot Act and was allowed to detain and deport terrorist suspects. Another change as a result of the act was much easier access to search warrants. Instead of having to get individual warrants for every location surrounding a case, the Patriot Act allowed one warrant to cover all locations related to one alleged terrorist. By allowing warrants to be passed with such ease it made investigations more timely but also put citizens privacy at stake. These laws reassured the public of their safety immediately after a terrorist attack but, in more current times as technology continues to advance, people feel threatened by the growing power of the
The United States is in a tricky situation. First and foremost, we are a country that prides itself on being free. Even the fourth amendment to our Constitution declares, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet we are also a country that demands security. Americans expect that our government will keep us safe. These two ideals, freedom and security, are often at odds. How can we expect our government to stop terrorism without infringing on our rights? Recent disclosures, that the government has access to American phone calls and emails, have brought this debate to the forefront of public discourse.
After forty-five days had passed since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. “This Act is a 342-page, sprawling piece of legislation that contains more than 150 sections and amends more than 15 federal laws”(USA). The laws that this act clearly “bypasses” goes completely against the U.S. Constitution which was drafted by bright and experienced men who wrote that document for a clear reason. To make a new government which does not cheat and unfairly treat its citizens. The Patriot Act “steps on every
Introduction: The horrific tragedies of September 11, 2001 changed the course of American national security for decades to come. It took a while for Americans to recover from the sadness, loss and confusion of the attacks. The American government knew that Al Qaeda–the terrorist organization that orchestrated the attacks–was still posing a huge threat to our nation’s security. Statement of Understanding: In response to the events that took place on 9/11, the USA/Patriot Act was passed just six weeks later. The act outlined America’s surveillance laws, increasing national airport security measures, increasing subway and mass transit security in major U.S. cities, and increasing the government’s ability to spy on its citizens.
“Some tourists think Amsterdam is a city of sin, but in truth it is a city of freedom. And in freedom, most people find sin.” This might sounds like a section from a travelling guide, but it also describes why we as a society cannot gain complete freedom. Complete Freedom requires all negative repercussions from individual’s actions to be unpunished, making it impossible to allow any form of justice into the community, turning it into a den of criminals. Due to that, a government with security force to help regulate rules is necessary to keep the whole country going without breaking down. However, with great power comes great responsibilities, and most government that is allowed too much power will crack under the pressure and implant complete security to protect their power from being taken by another leader that is not their main choice, or by the public through revolution. A sensible country will not allow its government to achieve either, as both will affect the country significantly in a negative spotlight. However, balancing freedom and security doesn’t take away all the problems, as having same amount of freedom and security is impossible in reality and will soon tip into either side, and having more security than freedom will make citizens protest outside and inside of the area of influence by the government, and the awareness created can lead to tragic aftermath. This is why having more freedom than security while allowing the government to regulate individual actions that can adversely affect others, as total security will lead to totalitarianism and tyranny, allowing more security over freedom will generate resentment severe riot, and, total freedom will lead to chaos and anarchy.