After the horrific incident on September 9, 2001, the Patriot Act was passed to help “reduce” terrorist attacks, but they have only restricted us from our rights and feeling free. Regardless of whether we have anything to hide, we deserve to feel comfortable in our own homes. They can even hack into our TVs and cameras! This is unacceptable! We have been dealing with the violation of our privacy due the Patriot Act, but this act led to the abuse of governments’ power, violation of our natural rights, and the government has been going through our texts, internet history, social media, which is breaching into the laws of the constitution. The government has been given too much authority and is only investigating anyone that they believe is …show more content…
This is not what the Patriot Act was passed for; they have gone over their limits and are getting involved with things that don’t entirely concern them. This is exactly what infuriates the people because they are getting out of their boundaries to make a big fuss out of some minor crime that has nothing to pertain to terrorism. While the Patriot Act was put into place to stop terrorism, it has had a nasty after math. People suspected of terrorist activity have no civil rights. They are put in prison and held without due process regardless of whether they are innocent or not. This is just wrongful imprisonment because they don’t have a valid reason as to why they would put an innocent civilian behind bars. This act just concerns the people by any rational assessment. The power given to the government to conduct surveillance on citizens is just against the constitution because we have no privacy. The government is off-track and is labeling anyone as a suspected terrorist and will collect information about them. We are living in a society where slowly and slowly we’re going to lose most of our rights and be told what to do. We are gradually going to become somewhat close to a dictatorship and lose all of our rights. The Patriot Act also allows the above-mentioned sneak and peak warrants to be used for any federal crime, …show more content…
It may be that they have the power to investigate terrorism; the Congress should have the ability to ensure that the FBI does not overreach. The Patriot Act even gave the FBI the power to extract unlimited business records like sensitive files like medical, library and bookstore records, with a secret court order issued with no factual showing of need. The only possible way for all this to get better would be by restricting the FBI from some of their power and only letting them obtain files about people suspected of being terrorist. They should not get the entire database of information of innocent people. It goes back to the government exceeding his limits and not staying within his power because the Patriot Act was passed to reduce terrorist attacks, not to spy on innocent people and end up arresting them for no apparent reason because they are innocent. The FBI’s investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a statue that was expanded by the Patriot Act, was released to the public with almost no information. The FBI should do more public reporting on techniques so the public will become informed on how much information is obtained about citizens. The Patriot Act contains domestic terrorism, so broad that someone who commits a
The Patriot Act violates many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, gives American citizens freedom of speech, press, and religion. The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor the religious and political papers and institutions of citizens that are not even reasonable suspects for criminal activity. Church,
For hundreds of years Americans have been growing up with the notion that it is a right to own a gun. Since the creation of the second amendment, people all over the United States have been able to guns for private use. Guns operated by the public are said to have a variety of uses such as, being able to protect oneself if conflict arises, grants the ability to put food on the table, and are used in competitions shooting targets against other people. But for many people guns have been seen as the root of all evil. Anti-gun users think that guns cause a variety of unexpected and innocent deaths. They also think that there are not enough laws in place that allow just about anyone to purchase a gun. The question of should guns be legal to all citizens has plagued our society. Do you think it is morally right for anyone to arm themselves and use it when they deem it to be necessary? Or do you think that the 2rd amendment seem unnecessary and outdated law that needs to be rewritten? These questions are just two of many that have thrown back and forth between pro-gun and anti-gun users.
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
Following the terrorist attacks, Congress created the Patriot Act. The act allowed law enforcement's around the country greater ability to track terrorism or possible terrorists. It expanded the governments ability to investigate and punish terrorists. This act was accepted quickly by the House of Representatives, and was passed almost unanimously in the Senate. President George W. Bush signed this act into being on October 6th, 2001. This act allows the police to have surveillance over any form of communication that could be used by a terrorist. Things that were private privileges, such as emails, the internet, and, ...
“We have to make a balance between security and civil liberties.”(Sensenbrenner 2). The patriot act was passed with very little congressional debate. The public was unaware of its passing. Our security is over protective because rights are being broken. Our rights should matter more to the government because the security is overprotective. Is the patriot act too harsh and invading our privacy?
One of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution and which is also part of the Bill of Rights is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from being searched or arrested by police officers or any law enforcement without a reason. An officer may confront you and ask to search your house but if they don’t have a search warrant, they cannot legally pursue it without good reason and permission from a judge. Now what happens when a person is being arrested? Does the police or any law enforcement need a search warrant? The answer to that question would have to be no. This is where “Search incident to arrest” comes into play. Search incident to arrest (SITA), which could also be called the Chimel rule, is a
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
It is a well-distinguished fact that the government loves using surveillance – a surveillance’s easy accessibility, regardless of the threat they pose, verifies the government’s love. Surveillance is a part of the government’s life. According to ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, the government passed quite a lot of legislative acts, such as the USA/Patriot Act, that would allow the government to watch doubtful actions. The act was a revision of the nation's surveillance laws that allowed the government's authority to spy on the citizens. The Patriot Act made it easier for the system to gain access to records of citizens' actions being held by a third party. Similarly, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allowed the FBI to force many people - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn in information on their clients (“Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act”).
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”-Benjamin Franklin. We live in an age where governments invade the private lives of its citizens in the name of safety. Ironically, anyone who displaying a hint of paranoia when it comes to government surveillance or secrecy is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. It seems that in the U.S., it has become frowned upon to believe that our government would ever infringe on our rights, unintentionally or deliberately. After all, they can’t, it says so in the constitution! But, alas, it turns out “Big Brother” has been very busy the past decade. It seems as though every year new government scandals arise, from cover ups to spying on U.S. citizens. Law enforcement and government agencies are slowly finding “loopholes” through problematic areas of the constitution, with little regard for citizens’ rights. It is our duty as citizens, to not tolerate violations of the law that our nation was founded upon. By examining history and other countries’ policies regarding privacy and freedoms, it becomes clear that if these breaches of our rights are allowed to go on, we will be living in a country of fear and oppression.
...never demolish terrorism but they can help make laws to prevent it. The U.S. Patriot Act is clearly defined and understandable. Even though there are pros and cons to the act it is in the government’s best interest to help keep America safe and keep our civil liberties intact.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
The recent terrorists attacks of 9/11 has brought security to an all-time high, and more importantly brought the NSA to the limelight. Facts don 't change however, terrorist attacks are not common as history has shown. So what has domestic surveillance actually protected? There are no records to date that they have stopped any harm from being caused. If it is well known by every American that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with the intention of harming use these devices to talk about their heinous acts? The real criminals are smarter than this, and it has shown with every attack in our history. Petty acts of crime are not what domestic surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has been happening for decades before any electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spy on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Check and Balances? that until Americans set free the idea of national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security will never happen as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of safety should not be
...ed to be worried. It simply is not possible to not to have some measure of national security precautions without jeopardizing the security of the populace, especially with new technology that America has now. The Patriot Act does not infringe upon the rights of citizens; it ensures that those who wish to harm this country have limited means to do so. The Patriot Act was passed as a means to allow better protection of citizens given the current state of technology today. The aftermath of the attacks on September 11th demonstrated that this was necessary. The Constitution is not designed to render the nation defenseless against people who have no value for human life, and who will use whatever means necessary to harm others to advance their goals In conclusion the Patriot Act gives the government the tools in which are necessary to keep America and its citizens safe.
The Patriot act positives out weigh the negatives. The positives are law enforcement being able to use surveillance that investigators used to investigate organized crime and drug traffickers. The Federal Bureau of Investigations can now use wiretaps to investigate possible terrorist when before they were only allowed to use them to investigate organized crime and drug traffickers. The Patriot Act allowed enforcement or investigating agencies to collect information when looking into terrorism-related crimes, including: chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing. The Act allowed the FBI to seek court authorization to use the same actions in national security investigations to track terrorists such as roving wiretaps. Federal courts in constricted circumstances have allowed law enforcement agencies to delay for a limited time when the person’s judicially approved search warrant is...
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.