Do We Still Need the PATRIOT Act?
Questioning the necessity of the Patriot act can be difficult, but ultimately the idea of it becoming outdated is always a possibility. I feel after reading the articles it really starts to pinpoint the fact that its intentions differ from its results. It was created with the purpose of protecting citizens, which by all means is a great thing. Considering that after the 9/11 attacks, it really showed how easily something that disastrous could happen.
Similar to the quote Mr. Lehmann is known for, using outdated acts is only keeping us safe from past events in my opinion. So by really abusing the Patriot act and pursuing unnecessary things only delays out progress forward. The borderline between reasonable and unreasonable suspicion is a definite one. By using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, any national agent simply needed to apply for a warrant for surveillance and it was done. This really limits the amount of actual investigation the user really has to do. I feel as though the warrant should only be issued if the applicant has reasonable proof that the surveil-ee --if you-d like to call them-- is causing some sort of harm or disturbance to others.
Terrorism is a strong word, and should only be given to those honestly sought out to literally cause terror to those of society. The Patriot act was established to prevent situations of terrorism like we've witnessed in the past. But after watching Enemy of the State and other, similar movies, it's easy to see how simple it is for invasions of privacy to occur to average civilians.
To conclude, the Patriot act was passed for a reason. It's intentions are to keep us safe, and to my knowledge has done its job considering that situations in the past have yet to happen again. Some may say the whole aspect of "invading privacy" may become a factor. But ultimately, I'm the type of person to live and let live. I let the government officials do their job, and I rely on them to keep the civilians safe. If you're not doing anything bad, then you should have no problem under the rare circumstance of being monitored. The end.
Similar to the quote Mr. Lehmann is known for, using outdated acts is only keeping us safe from past events in my opinion. So by really abusing the Patriot act and pursuing unnecessary things only delays out progress forward. The borderline between reasonable and unreasonable suspicion is a definite one. By using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, any national agent simply needed to apply for a warrant for surveillance and it was done. This really limits the amount of actual investigation the user really has to do. I feel as though the warrant should only be issued if the applicant has reasonable proof that the surveil-ee --if you-d like to call them-- is causing some sort of harm or disturbance to others.
Terrorism is a strong word, and should only be given to those honestly sought out to literally cause terror to those of society. The Patriot act was established to prevent situations of terrorism like we've witnessed in the past. But after watching Enemy of the State and other, similar movies, it's easy to see how simple it is for invasions of privacy to occur to average civilians.
To conclude, the Patriot act was passed for a reason. It's intentions are to keep us safe, and to my knowledge has done its job considering that situations in the past have yet to happen again. Some may say the whole aspect of "invading privacy" may become a factor. But ultimately, I'm the type of person to live and let live. I let the government officials do their job, and I rely on them to keep the civilians safe. If you're not doing anything bad, then you should have no problem under the rare circumstance of being monitored. The end.
Comments
No comments have been posted yet.
Log in to post a comment.