they picture was being weird, but here's the link for the picture:
In the first article "theres still a need, Mr Posner writes that certain aspects of the patriot act are long over due however, I felt as though his paper wasn't that opinionated because although he talked about how the act was making up for lost time and certain aspects of it were needed to increase national security and how the decisions made about the act were justified, he barely goes into detail about the act. To a reader who didn't know what the act was, his article would be a dull, under opinionated read. In my opinion he should've went into more detail about the new measures of security that the act entailed and about the difference between the government seeping too far into peoples personal rights and being justified enough by the strengthening need for more intense national security. In my opinion, i think that we do need the patriot act but not to the extent that they show in the movie enemy of state. I think that if people are under suspicion and the government has reasonable belief to think they are a threat to national security, they should be put under some surveillance but at the same time, i wouldn't want the government taping into my phone conversations if they misinterpreted something that i said or did.
As i read the articles they raise important things such as, how easy it was for the terrorism to do their attack. I Agree we still do need it but to a certain limit though. As citizen we do not want to be always ruled over rules but then again its for the best interest of our safeness.
Observing the film about the deaf couple was different. The absence of silence added more dramatic effect to what was going on between the two. After the argument the couple had, the guy storms out. The female starts writing a journal on the computer about the things that are driving this couple to breaking up. The entire time the tv is on tuned into the news, and the news is reporting what is happening to the Twin Towers (World Trade Center). Because of the fact the female was deaf, she had no idea what was going on until the room around her starts shaking, then her boyfriend shows up covered in ash. When the female opened the door, and I saw her boyfriend standing there, I was amazed. Knowing what was going on in New York that day, would have lead me to think the police was showing up at the door to report the boyfriend's death. The film took a turn, and fooled me. All of the films were mind blowing, but those two were the ones that stuck with me the most. If I was the age I am now at the time, I would love to know how everything would have a different affect on me.
Many people feel uncomfortable knowing that the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on people. That is understandable, but the average American should not be worried whether or not they are being spied on (unless they are doing something they shouldn’t). They need to understand that the only people that the government will keep under surveillance are the people who are guilty of suspicious terrorist activity, this includes people traveling in and out of the country. And if people are still not convinced, according to the NYTimes article, A Vital Weapon, agents cannot “eavesdrop” or spy on a person unless they prove to a judge that the suspect is a terrorist.
While I agree with some of the articles against the Patriot Act, I believe that the it should remain a law. Like many laws, this one isn’t perfect, no one is going to get exactly what they want. I can get past the whole “invasion of privacy” thing if it means I can live life without another terrorist attack. The Patriot Act has helped the US in the past and it is going to help us in the future.
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.
One reason we need the Patriot act is for the fact that since it was enforced there have been no major terrorism attacks such as 9/11. This is a great thing because I do not believe that this country can handle another attack like that. Now while I do believe that we still do need the patriot act I do feel that in the Past the government has been abusing the law.
Between the years 2003 and 2006 the FBI issued 192,499 NSL's (allows them to access personal records) that led to only one terrorist attack. This is just showing how the government can abuse power. So for this act to be continued their needs to be restrictions on when the government does this.
Another example on why the government needs restrictions is because in the year 2010 there were 3,970 sneak and peaks 76% of which were drug related 24% other and less than 1% were terrorist related. This shows that the government can bend the act to satisfy what they need to arrest other criminals. So in order for the act to continue there also needs to be a way for other parts of the government to monitor why exactly the FBI or CSI are performing a Sneak and Peak.
In the end I feel that we do need this act but there needs to be restrictions. Without the restrictions it is invasion of privacy for all the wrong reasons. Which is why people complain about the Patriot Act.
There has been a number of terrorists plots stopped thanks to the Patriot Act that most people don’t here about since if you look at the charts for violence in America compared to the other countries, America tops most charts for having the most violence. There are many other examples since it helps the government keeps tabs on potential terrorists and even if its not many people that protects from being hurt, its still protecting people. If “lone wolves” are out there, America needs some way to make sure that they aren’t still working with the terrorist organizations outside the country to attack America and this is the most effective way since it allows the FBI to tap their phones so that they are in the loop.
Although it is a breach of privacy, the need for tightened security after how a security breach on 9/11 turned into the most horrendous experience for Americans in its recent history shows how much we took our freedom and lifestyle for granted if it can be attacked that easily. In other words, you can say that giving up a some of your privacy should be okay if it can stop someone from turning in a terrorist and blowing up something, killing lots of people.
Now that Osama Bin Laden has been killed and the multiple wars and quickly coming to an end, I feel as though the PATRIOT act is not really needed. It has certainly served it's purpose as the key to protecting this country but now that the immediate threat is gone it's time to back off a bit. Americans need to feel the comfort of their former rights and what life was like before 9/11. Of couse certain security rules must stay in place since 9/11 did show the holes in our security but things such as the PATRIOT act are not longer needed.
act of patriotism... Sounds like an honorable,
and righteous thing no matter what the perspective... So right off
the back the name is misleading! "America land of the free" is
actually short for the real expression, it actually is said "America land
of the free, unless your Black, Jewish, Italian, Asian, Indian, Poor, Latino,
but ESPECIALLY Middle Eastern". The Patriot Act enables the American
government to write a legal document to secretly spy on any citizen. Even
better if they find any evidence of "suspicious activity" they can
make arrests without even notifying the "alleged criminals" of their
crimes or rights. Talk about unconstitutional, when this bill was written in
2001 congress pulled down their pants and left a nice one all over the 1st,
4th, 7th, and 14th amendments.
I understand their are very valid debates to why this law can be for good. It does tighten security and makes it easier to catch the bad guys. The extremely evident problem I see is who decides who the bad guys are? I cant say that I’ve never made a racial stereotype but I can say I’ve never wanted to arrest someone for looking or acting a certain way without being certain of their guilt towards a crime. The level of ignorance and corruption in US politics that continues to flow through the media has completely turned me off to any idea that the American government is actually on the side of the people who aren't rich or white, and I’m saying this as a fucking well off white man!!!!
Don’t get me wrong I’m 100% a patriot, I love America, I love Philadelphia, I love the communities in which I’ve been brought up in, and I love my life. However if there’s something I love more then America it’s a respect for human rights. I’ve never been oppressed and the one quality I was born with that links my ancestors to oppression is my mothers Judaism. That being said I consider myself an empathetic person who believes in social rights, and liberties for all people regardless of race or religion. The people who were involved in 9/11 are murderers, and animals for which I share no compassion, however to punish an entire race for the crimes of few is savage and putrid. In the The New York Times editorial of the patriot act their congressional research service committee gives a summery of the act. In the fourth sentence of the summery I quote “It creates new crimes, new penalties, and new procedural efficiencies for use against domestic and international terrorists.” HOWEVER it does not list what those new crimes, penalties, and procedural efficiencies are! That means there are laws that are private to the American public. Penalties that are not disclosed with the average citizen. Worst of all policies that only exist in clandestine government files. How in any way is that Patriotic?
Imagine a city under domestic military control, where the government has access to any amount of private information and has the ability to legally arrest and torture any citizen. Now imagine that the head of this military operation is a rich, racist, chauvinistic, white man, who got the military position from family connection rather then merit and personal accomplishment. In 1960 Bobby Kennedy was appointed as commanding general without any previous experience. (Not to bash Bobby Kennedy just an example of family connection leaking into office) That may not be the case but this “patriot act” is the first step in giving the government that kind of power. My criticism of the US government does not reach into all branches. I do believe that things could be a lot worse then they are, and that much of the government has righteous and morale intentions. My hope is that the Patriot Act is not abolished but instead refined. All information should be made public and it should be evident that the government works for the people, not the other way around. I don’t have a problem with catching the bad guys but the perception of what is right and wrong should not only be left to a specific number of government officials no matter how qualified or unqualified to make that decision they are. Citizens need to understand that its their responsibility to be informed of all laws and what could be considered suspicious behavior, however in order to do that the information needs to consistently be pushed in the publics face. The people should have a say in any law that affects them especially one like the Patriot Act.
After eleven years of having the Patriot Act the question raise is it still needed. People have come to say that the Patriot Act is not needed anymore with the fact that nothing else as big has happened since 9/11. But then again without the Patriot Act can anything like 9/11 happen again. In one of the articles it states that the world is worse then what it used to be, because of the way that technoklogy has advanced and much much more. And with this said the article, There's Still a Need for the Patriot Act, says that defense technology has not yet been able to keep up. One more point that is brought up that is well thought out is the fact that even if the Patriot Act wasn't needed we still need at least part of it or some aspects of it.
With even the thought that something like this may be able to happen again the Patriot Act will be an important aspect to keep in our lives. As previously stated before jut because nothing has happened since 9/11 doesn't mean nothing can't happen. For example if suddenly the Patriot Act was no longer needed and then there was another attack what will be needed to do? Also what if survellience wasn't as strict and then something a little less server happened? Will the Patriot Act be put back in place or will there have to be another act that was made.
Another thing that came to mind was something after reading the article on the 9/11 commission report. After reading it and discovering that all these men that hijacked the plane were able to get ont he plan so easily it was just amazing. They had no problem going through security or needing their baggage checked. Now that we have th Patriot Act and if it was taken away it would feel as though we are loosing some of our security. Now a days people would least expect this to happen again because of how well our security is. So by taking away this act its also taing away our sense of security.
However, with all the good that seems to come with it. There has to be a limit, sure a lot of the procedures are a necessity but it violates many rights from the Constitution. A fine line should be set that when things are no longer seeming as if it could relate to terrorism, then it should stop. Personal information to that person should never be leaked or used as an advantage. It's worst than identity theft and that's definitely a crime. In other words, this counter-terrorism operation is a privilege and it should be rightfully conducted, not abused by agencies who run whatever they think is right or at their will. The point is to protect not violate people's rights and the constitution. Once again, keep in mind that there are certain necessities that need to be bypassed in order to carry out the operations.