The controversy that must be discussed is whether or not this legislation fully or in part has violated the Constitution and/or endangered our civil liberties in any way. John Kerry former presidential candidate is opposed to the patriot act stating ?We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.? John Kerry is right in suggesting that the patriot act is thinning our freedoms.
The Bill of Rights was ratified and in full effect in 1791. It spelled out rights and freedoms which protected citizens from the government and gave them, most especially; protections under the law against criminal accusations made against them. In 2001, John Walker Lindh (known to some as the “American Taliban”) became an accused man; he was an American citizen and alleged anti-American terrorist. Lindh was denied a number of rights vital to make his proper, fair, and full defense. Lindh’s constitutional rights should have been upheld despite the charges against him and any possible intelligence towards the war on terror he may have had; for there is a slippery-slope to denying someone these constitutional rights.
Snowden had a valid and justifiable reason to expose the NSA to the world because they were in violation of our fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures. The government called him a traitor, while others viewed him as a hero for exposing the government. Edward Snowden is a whistle blower because he felt that it is up to society to decide if governmental practices are just or unjust. Snowden does “express the highest respect for the law”, and he wanted to protect the right of privacy for American citizens. It is likely to consider Edward Snowden as a whistle blower because he wanted the people to decide what the government can or can not do.
Under the new government, they immediately drafted the Bill of Rights, rights that they believed were unalienable for all men. The government's role was not to control our lives, as the British rule had done, but to prevent chaos and protect us from those who tried to take our freedoms. Man is naturally power hungry, and those who run the government may attempt to take away the public's rights as stated under the Bill of Rights. Because of such cases where those in government have created laws to... ... middle of paper ... ....org/haddad.html "Civil Disobedience." 20 October 2002. http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/home- aol.htm "How The USA-Patriot Act allows for detention and deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity."
American civil liberties are defined as civil rights designed with the purpose of limiting government intervention in citizen’s affairs (Civil Liberties 1). After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the United States government enacted new policies that did not universally coincide with the civil liberties Americans are guaranteed. Several of the new procedures enacted were unnecessary and caused average American citizens to have to live without the civil liberties they are assured that they will receive. Also in an attempt to infiltrate terrorist organizations, interrogation tactics have become brutal and grotesque. Despite the victim’s criminal status, basic rights the law guarantees such people are being defiled.
After 9/11 there was a huge pull towards safety. The nation was shaken and afraid, we needed protection. But where has that protection gotten us? The price it came at was our constitutional rights, and its time for the American people to reassess the situation and decide whether or not they’ve changed their minds. The government has done a good job of proving that we cannot have both freedom and safety, and now its time to chose which is more important to us as a nation.
This filter can, and in some cases has already been, be extended to block other ideas and information the acting government wants to hide from its public (Killock). After serious inspection, it is clear that this filter is essentially pointless for the governments stated use. In my opinion, this legislation is a very serious threat to both the privacy of individuals and free speech and the democratic process One of... ... middle of paper ... ...eates for the modern west. While the United States is more enamored with the concepts of free speech and the absence of government interference in our daily lives, it is not hard to imagine our government passing similar legislation. Already, we have passed legislation like the Patriot Act that greatly restricts our freedoms.
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.
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving the mass data stockpiles and the rights of foreigners against immoderate and disproportionate surveillance by the US. Furthermore, the intentions of the NSA still remain unclear; why is the collection and the extended retention of this data useful?
This is mainly based on the fact that impeachment, as defined, applies to the president and his role regarding the state and safety of the country. Privacy was introduced by the House Managers but widely used by the defense team. The defense focused on this so completely because private matters do not fit into the actions of high crimes and misdemeanors, which is required to impeach the president. The main purpose behind focusing on privacy was to show that matters in a personal life to not reach the level of impeachable regardless how immoral they were. The main goal, therefore was to prevent the impeachment of the president.