Why is America taking such drastic moves like putting full body scanners in airports? The truth of the matter is that America is willing to do what ever it takes to protect the lives of American people and their families.
The sectaries of America say scanners violate their freedom of rights. However, these scanners were prudently designed with the privacy of the customers in mind by not giving them a hard drive, or putting memory and data storage in them.
America has had 21 terrorist attacks, from 2000 to 2009 consisting mostly of al-Qaeda and suicide bombers (infoplease.com). Osama Ben Laden, leading al-Qaeda’s attacks is fed up with the way America treats the world. Blaming America for global warming and determined to stop them by sending suicide bombers and hijacking planes. After the 9/11 attack America changed the way they looked at security, putting into effect; Airport Security Federalization Act of 2001: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools (The Library of Congress).
Most recently, America has decided to put full body scanners in airports to detect items hidden under clothing and are considering using the scanner as the main source of screening customers. The full body scanners take detailed images of the naked body, allowing security to see what is underneath clothing. They will speed security lines and find people carrying explosives without pat downs or full body searches. However, there is a draw back of this sumptuous two hundred thousand dollar machine; it cannot see objects hidden inside body cavities. Some rigid Americans believe that having their picture taken at a public place by a stranger is humiliating and infrin...
... middle of paper ...
...watch, without slowing down the line or inconveniencing the people lined up behind you. No thank you, I am going to avoid the hassle and embarrassment of metal detectors and possibly a pat down by going through the full body scanner. I would rather have one hidden person see my naked body knowing the other hundred people are seeing nothing, not even my toenails.
I believe the problem that Americans should be concerned with is the safety of themselves and their loved ones. Simply putting it, if given the option of showing their naked bodies or possibly dying, I am sure they would choose to show their naked bodies. So, let us bring a collation together and consider what is important in life.
Works Cited
The Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/
A Blue View http://www.ablueview.com
News Week http://current.newsweek.com
Infoplease http://Infoplease.com
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.
Before the events of 9/11 the US had been attacked before and we were aware of possible threats. However, these threats, specifically those of Al-Qaeda were not taken seriously by American foreign policy makers or regular Americans alike, so on September 11, 2001 Americans were truly shocked by the scale of devastation and loss of life that occurred. The effect these attacks had on America was incredible. In the years that followed Americans became fearful and discriminatory of religious groups; the government created the Department of Homeland Security and enacted stricter search and seizure laws, and America’s foreign policy became defined by unilateral decision making and preemptive war.
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.
19 militants from al-Qaeda carried suicide attacks towards the United States. Two of the planes hit the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, making the towers to fall down. A third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania which didn’t reach its goal which was the Capitol. As a result from this tremendous attack over 3,000 people died in New York City and Washington D.C.
On September 11, 2001 New York came upon a terrorist attack. The terrorist hijacked four airplanes the morning of the attack. The attack was part of the Al-Qaeda Islamist group, led by Osama Bin Laden. Two planes collided into the World Trade Center; one hit the Pentagon, and the other one crashed in Pennsylvania never reaching its destination. The cause of 9/11 is that Islam saw the United States as a heinous country with different and awful morals so they decided to attack. The consequences were the tensions between Americans and Muslims rose. Numerous hate crimes were committed and there was a massive economic downfall. We could have avoided this incident if the airport security would have been more strict, then the attack would have a less chance of happening (Bantista). “Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts. Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward. And freedom will be defended.” –President Bush directly after the 9/11 attacks (Tsimelkas). The government issued extreme changes in the military system and the surveillance ...
While it is accurate that everyone needs privacy but has that gone too far? David took privacy a little too far in the article and definitely neglected to mention that it is rarely for any of us has to deal with situation that involved police
On September 11th, 2001, four planes were hijacked, two planes hit the twin towers, one hit the pentagon, and one crash-landed in a field in Pennsylvania. Since then the government has been doing everything it can to help with security at airports, in airplanes, and in everyday life. Even though the government has been trying to increase security, terrorists have still been successful. Since 9/11, the government has taken many steps to increase security and decrease terrorism. However, security has increased, while terrorism has not decreased.
The 9/11 attack changed America in ways that made limits on our freedom and privacy seem better than the alternative. On September 11, 2001, “...our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks,” President George W. Bush stated in a public address shortly after the attacks. He also stated, “Today, our nation saw evil – the very worst of human nature – and we responded with the very best of America,” to calm fears ...
Man has always strived for the ultimate form of stability. The world that forged our ancestors was a dangerous place, rife with disease, sparse with food, stricken with environmental harshness, brimming with beasts. They wanted to live in a world where the power of fear was lessened, where they could live longer, where they were safe. The societies we live in today were created to ensure that base standard of safety that Mencken observes all men desire. Mencken, however, misunderstands full extent of safety the average man desires, and in doing so he rules freedom as a separate entity, when truly the nature of freedom and safety are more intertwined than one may think.
We must go through a lot of loss of privacy living here in America; security cameras constantly watch us, our credit cards are monitored, and even things like our social media life is monitored closely. Obviously we are not as monitored as countries such as North Korea, but we are still more monitored than we think we are. America is being watched around the clock, one great example is the Xbox One, which has its camera always on and monitoring.
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.
Freedom in the United States Essay submitted by Unknown No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history. The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect for the freedom of religion.
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.
Americans have considered terrorism as a horror that occurs in other countries and not as a real threat to America itself. As the recent terrorist attacks on our nation shows, this opinion was gravely incorrect. There are several policies in both the private sector and our government, which contributed to our vulnerability to terrorism.
“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.