Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the patriot act protects americans civil liberties
how civil liberties have been affected by the war on terror
What impact has the Patriot Act had on civil liberties in America essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the patriot act protects americans civil liberties
The War on Terrorism Has Not Compromised Civil Liberties
In the wake of 9/11, the United States of America began to fight a war on terrorism. Many in this country would say we actually started a war against ourselves. One argument is the war on terrorism has begun to erode our civil liberties. Have our civil liberties really been abused or have they been slightly altered by the Patriot Act to protect all Americans best interests? To fully protect Americans from future terrorist attacks monitoring, the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, and the Patriot Act have been essential components.
Many complain the war on terrorism has invaded their right to privacy. People are worried their phone conversations and internet use are being monitored. The truth is only those suspected of terrorists acts are being closely monitored by the government. The fact is we need military tribunals, detention programs, monitoring of internet and phone activity and attorney-client conversations to protect all Americans from future terrorists attack (Ashcroft). Any person being monitored by the government is told before hand. For example; an inmate who's attorney-client conversation is being closely monitored know they are being overheard and can only be prosecuted for information pertaining to terrorism or future terrorist attacks. According to John Ashcroft monitoring conversations is one of the many steps needed to fight terrorism.
Immigrants fear deportation from the United States and feel their rights have been violated since 9/11. Our government has instilled this fear by passing the Patriot Act. "The Patriot Act flowed from a draft bill circulated by the Department of Justice in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks" (Byr...
... middle of paper ...
...e Senate Judiciary Committee. He said to scare the American people into losing their liberties only aids the terrorists, "for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve” (Davies).
Works Cited
* Ashcroft, John. "The War on Terrorism Has Not Eroded Civil Liberties." Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. New York: Greenhaven Press, 2004.
* Byrd, Robert C. Losing America. pgs: 45-49 New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2004.
* Davies, Frank. "Civil Liberties: Ashcroft Defends U.S. antiterror tactics." Detroit Free Press. 7 December 2001. 6 November 2004. <http://www.freep.com/news/nw/ash7_20011207.htm>.
* Hannity, Sean. Let Freedom Ring. pg: 133 New York: Regan Books, 2002.
* Hendrickson, David C., and Robert W. Tucker. "The Sources of American Legitimacy." Foreign Affairs. New York: 2004.
Slavery not only ruined the lives of those who were oppressed by it, but also the lives of the oppressors, because slavery was capable of ruining the family life of slave owners. Douglass obs...
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.
Typically the most basic civil liberties are found in a country’s bill of rights and then that country passes amendments as needed in order to grow the peoples’ civil liberties, or shrink them if need be. Now, in the case of the United States the people are not “granted“ civil liberties by the...
Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
Social Security is a system that was set up in 1935 after the Great depression to help people get through tough times. "Social Security is now used by nearly 44 million Americans"(policy.com). Only people who payed into social security are eligible to collect when they retire. Many people think that they receive the money they pay in but that is not total true. The money that you pay in is used for the people that are receiving it now. "In 1950 there were 16 workers for every beneficiary; today there are only three workers per beneficiary"(policy.com). There is more money going into social security then coming out now. The extra money goes into a trust to be used when it is needed. By the year 2032 those numbers are going to drop. By this time most baby boomers will be retired and collecting social security. This will put a big strain on the funds. There will be more money going out then coming in. And it will not take long to use all the money that is in the trust. By the year 2034 they will only be able to pay 75 percent of the beneficiaries. "The projected average monthly Social Security benefit in 2032 of about 1,100 (in 1998 dollars) would fall to about $800, and would drop further in later years. Average benefits for low-wage earners would drop from $670 to $480"(www.ssab). Theses cut would effect the people just starting to receive benefits and those who are already receiving benefits. And with each year these benefits will decrease. As these benefits continue to decrease "the percentage of aged people living in poverty would rise"(www.ssab).Most people believe this is happening because of the baby boomers generation. There will be more people taking from social security then giving in. By the time my generation is eliable to receive social security there may not be any money to give.
...g on someone’s or some group’s rights. So if a few must suffer in order for the needs of the many it can prove very bad because of the moral obligation involving rights in this case are severe. Finally in my reason of finding this theory unattractive, is the fact that utilitarianism seems to view people as vessels of pleasure and pain rather than as people.
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
...ry. Some may reject it and have the objection that utilitarianism does not provide an effective way of life. Those who object may say that this moral theory is not good or specific enough, lacks a mention of full human potential and capabilities, and fails to address the special moral values of humans. Mill provides an effective response to those who doubt utilitarianism, and states that there is only one end (happiness) that humans aim for and that humans and humans alone are the only ones who can judge and experience all pleasures and qualities of life.
Two cultures, thousands of miles apart, show similarities that would be expected of neighboring civilizations. Both cultures arose on similar terrain. This terrain was a luscious grassland. One civilization grew up in Midwest North America, the other in Central Asia. The first civilization was the Plains Indians. The second was the Mongols. Each culture had a common form of religion. This religion was shamanism. Wordiq defines it as "a range of traditional beliefs and practices that involve the ability to diagnose, cure, and sometimes cause human suffering because of a special relationship with, or control over, spirits." The cultures were also affected by the horse. According to David Nicolle, the horse appeared on the Central Plains of America during the 18th century C.E. (The Mongol Warlords: Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Hulegu Tamerlane). Horses are native to the Mongolian region.
According to Congressman Richard Gephardt, the social security was not meant to be the sole source of retirement income but rather as a foundation for retirement to give all working Americans a safety cushion. There will be money in the fund until 2029, so distressing baby boomers don’t have to worry. After that money is depleted the revenue from the payroll tax will be sufficient enough to pay 75% of every social security benefit for the subsequent 75 years. But how many burdens should be put on the young and middle age individuals, whose taxes basically pay for government retirement ...
September 11th 2001 was not only the day when the delicate facade of American security was shattered, but it was also the events of this day that led to the violation of the rights of millions of American citizens. After relentless reprehension by the American masses on the approach that was taken after the 9/11 attacks ,the Bush administration enacted the Patriot Act on October 26th, 2001, a mere 56 days after this tragic event.The Patriot Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies so that they could hopefully avert future terrorist attacks. Under the Patriot Act The NSA (National Security Agency) could entrench upon the privacy of the citizens of the U.S. without public knowledge, consent or, probable cause. The particular incident which had the general public up at arms was when the NSA illicit surveillance came to public knowledge.
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
A positive mood in the classroom increases the students self-efficacy. I stand at the doorway and greet each child as he or she enters the classroom. A simple, “Hello, how are you?” is often enough to put a smile on the face of most students. Choice is also a very important motivator in increasing the self efficacy of a student (Brozo & Flint, 2008). I allow the students to demonstrate choice in several ways. I give each student several appropriate leveled books to select from. The student chooses from a “menu” of interesting and engaging group activities to demonstrate mastery. I need to change the students’ thinking from “I can’t” to “I can.” One strategy is to increase the chances that a student will have a successful academic experience. The student should be assigned short attainable tasks that are moderately challenging. The assignment should not be so easy that the student is insulted or so hard that he gives up. Once the student demonstrates mastery and realizes that he can be successful, I gr...
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...