Respond to any combinations of the prompts below. Responses are due Friday am.
- How do we fight an enemy like Al Qaeda?
- Are principles and security mutually exclusive, at least to a degree?
- How much power to investigate Americans should the government have?
- Are you willing to give up some degree of privacy to fight the war on terrorism?
65 comments:
After the attack on the World Trade Center the U.S. government got on top of its security issues. It began to create new intelligence agencies such as the establishment of the Dept. of Homeland Security. It consolidated 22 nonmilitary government security agencies and assumed responsibility for U.S. air travel security through its Transportation Security Administration, and the establishment of the cabinet-level post of director of national intelligence, who became responsible for overseeing and coordinating all U.S. intelligence agencies. As a result, this agency has just made it much more difficult for all of the agencies to connect and collaborate on issues. Also, the Patriot Act was passed. This act makes it possible for police to check any suspicious looking people that may just so happen to be illegal. I find this act intolerable because I am Indian and I’m straight up brown. Now, if I was ever to go travel to Arizona I would not someone to stop me and check if I was legal or illegal. As a matter in fact I was born in the U.S. and I would not want to undergo such an unlawful situation as this. I also would give up some degree of privacy in order to help fight the war on terrorism. However, I would not want the government to get in all of my business like tracking down what books I’ve checked out in a public library because that’s just stretching it. Therefore,I think the government should just keep track of people that are suspicious of creating a terror attack rather than all of America.
Last I checked, my parents moved from my native of country of Thailand to the truly freest nation on earth: The United States of America. We did not move to the People’s Republic of China or attempt time travel back to Soviet Russia, and trust me there is a reason for that.
It is because this country is the beacon of light and hope for those without rights and liberty. People who live in lands of oppressive government and easily swayed majority look for a place where their social and economic decisions can be made without government breathing over their necks. America is the shining beacon represented from the Statue of Liberty (not the statue of tyranny) and our founding fathers did not enter into one of the most profound social contract in human history so that 200 years later the CIA can spy on its own citizens. Obvious enough, I personally feel that major provisions in the USA Patriot Act violates fundamental principles of the constitution, makes the government a much scarier entity than it was before the 9/11 world, and does not truly take care of the fundamental problems with extremists and terrorists.
First of all, in the historical perspective, this country was founded about the simple yet very powerful notion of “Give me liberty or Give me death”. The American colonists feared and despised an oppressive government which abused its powers and was able to not control itself from tyranny. This is the same tyranny that students of history have seen when people slowly give up more and more of their liberty to their government. (see every totalitarian regime ever). Does anyone remember the Japanese internment camps or McCarthy? America has tarnished its status as the leaders of liberty many times during these times, and our image in the world is extremely important in ending terrorism. Also this is why the constitution focused on limiting the federal government’s power and making sure that the people’s rights cannot be violated by government. Not only does it explicitly say in the text what this country cannot do, but the spirit of the constitution must be considered in every single law proposed in congress. Needless to say, this law breaks 1st amendment 4th amendments and 5th amendment rights of its citizens and goes above and beyond the wildest dreams of our founding fathers. The constitution did not protect these rights in times when it was easy to protect them, but also in times where these rights may be suspended.
Some may argue that although in principle this law is wrong, it is a necessary evil which can be made transparent so government cannot abuse its power and repealed once the war is over. This I say is a ridiculous sentiment and must be considered through the lens of reality, not idealism. People in government, as much as they would like to say they are in it for the voters also have some sense of self interest and self promotion. And that self interest is why giving such an already large entity so much power is wrong. Nixon abused his power as president to spy on Democrats. What is the limit on all of the possible abuses of this from spying on political opposition to using it to gather information on constituencies to get votes to a terrorist witch hunt in which countless of citizens can be detained without habeus corpeus and proven evidence. These rights, guaranteed to them as Americans, must be protected. Likewise, who is to say that these new government power will not be abused then the president in power will simply pardon them as he is leaving office. The accountability in the power of the executive is greatly reduced in this law.
In terms of protecting Americans from terrorists, this law does not do enough in certain areas and does too much in others. First, the entire beurocracy of information gathering should be reformed, not in one legislative panic, but rather in a carefully thought out way in which these agencies work together to have a full information connect. Likewise, things such as airport and public security should be fully addressed, which the government has done a good job with. Secondly, because of abuses of government in the past, warrantless wiretapping and ability to look into library records of citizens should be repealed because it violates fundamental rights. Instead, the law should also focus on America’s image in the world in which makes us less of a target. Ultimately, resentment towards this country stems from extremist views of America’s foreign policy. But if America decided to reach out to the Muslim world and ensure them that the US is not in war with Islam and that we will personally help rebuild their cities and infrastructure to show that America is not their enemy, but shares a mutual interest to end terrorism then the resentment towards truly decrease. We don’t need more foreign military, we need more foreign aid. That is the modern day best way to ensure security.
In the end, we as Americans must understand that as citizens, we must never be scared by the government to give them our rights. It is our rights and prosperity that these terrorists truly resent most. In our darkest hours, it was not the American military which made our nation the most blessed in the world or giant companies making billions that made us the best but it is the resiliency of every citizen to the idea that we must give up our freedom and lose the fight for human rights. Freedom was not easily attained and we must stay true to our creed of liberty. Because when we have given up our most basic rights, it is the terrorists who have won, not us.
The government should have some power to investigate people if they have a reason to investigate them. If the government investigate someone that might have done nothing wrong and they believe they did they accused a incant person for a mistake they made.I think that the government should have enough details for why they want to investigate that person and go through a court order to see if they are able to go through what they have came up with. Even though 9/11 happened they are accusing people that look like or they might think that they are planning another terrist when they really aren't.If the government doesn't have the right to investigate then they are not allowed to have the say in who is or who isn't some they aren't.
I am willing to give up some of my privacy to fight the war on terrorism. After 9/11 every where you go you have to be searched to be safe and to protect the people around you. But there is a certain point that I would not take. For example I would not want to be accused of something that I would have no attention of doing or perform doing. Another example is that if you ever go to an airport you would have to go earlier to be searched because it takes up your time to hurry and make it to your flight.I am willing to help my country but to a point that I feel is not right to do. Everyone has the right to make this decision and this is the decision I believe is right for me.
The enemy Al Qaeda is a very difficult group to deal with. In many other situations our enemy is very clear and easy to target. The difference now is that Al Qaeda members are amongst us. They are do not walk around advertising themselves. This makes is very difficult to identify an Al Qaeda member. If we attack communities, we may kill some Al Qaeda members, but we also will kill numerous amounts of innocent village members. This is why i am not certain how we should fight an enemy like Al Qaeda.
Principles and security should be private up to a degree, but we must remember those rights were given to us by the government, there for they have the power to limit how much privacy we earn. I feel that it would be fine to monitor every American, but if we do so all Americans must be monitored not just certain ones. If the government see's that a person is not a threat, there should be no reason to stalk the person father. But on the other hand, if the person being monitored shows reasonable suspicions, it should allow the government to investigate farther. This could greatly the reduce of terrorist and illegal immigrants in our borders, and protect and secure the people in our country.
I am willing to give up some degree of privacy because if not, this war will never end. We must budge a little to conquer a lot. I have nothing to hid, so i am not worried about trusting government officials checking up on my activities every once and a while.
Nick Cesca
How do we fight an enemy like Al Qaida? To me, that is a great question because the U.S has been trying to figure that out for more than a decade.
In 1998, several Al Qaida leaders issued a declaration calling on Muslims to kill as many Americans as they could, including civilians. They obviously don't like us what so ever, and since our tries to attack have failed so far, maybe it's time for another approach.
Maybe if the U.S. tried to help Al Qaida, we would not have as much tension between us. I believe that we should try to educate them. There are a lot of people over there who are very uneducated. There are also a lot of men who treat women terribly. What if we tried to help that? Maybe by giving them supplies like food and water and necessities of life they would have a different opinion on the American people.
I feel like this war is a waste. It's a waste of our time and money. It's money that we could be using to help rebuild our economy we've lost over the years. I think that is most important now. I also think President Obama should start pulling our troops out of the Middle East a day at a time and see where it goes. In class we were discussing the U.S and using the atomic bomb. Personally I think the atomic bomb should be a last resort, if a resort at all. Is just wipes out too many people, including innocent people that have done nothing to harm the U.S. It's a weapon that shouldn't be used at all. I think instead of fighting Al Qaeda we should at least try to help them become a better nation first and then see where it goes. Maybe some day we can become allies, if we learn to trust each other.
Matt Bailey
I think that it is a very tough task to fight an enemy like al queda. I say that because they aren’t in one specific country, they are all over the place and have all different types of people. This enemy attacks from all different types of ways but it seems like their main way is something that takes time to plan. So, to fight them you have to always be on guard and have good security.
I also think that the government should have all the power that they need to fight against an enemy. Especially, like al queda because they have already attacked us once and we are trying to prevent that from happening again. The government is just trying to keep us all safe and if they need to invade our privacy to do that then I think they should be able to do that. Just think about it, if that can save the life of you or many other American’s then it is a small fee to pay.
Are you willing to give up some degree of privacy to fight the war on terrorism?
After the discussion we had in class today, I realized this question has a split audience. Many people feel that privacy is a valuable thing to have and it’s very important to them knowing they can keep topics or other sources of information to themselves. I for one wouldn’t mind losing my privacy if it meant for a safer community. I have nothing to hide from anyone in this country and fighting this may give someone a legitimate reason to find you suspicious. One of my classmates shared her idea of increasing supervision during international conflicts that may show possible progressions and decreasing the severity of supervision when issues are rather calm. I believe this is a rather good compromise between people who are for and against this action.
I think that the government should not have total control over who they want to investigate and how they want to go about doing it. If the government has substantial evidence, evidence gathered by legal methods inside and outside of United States soil, and can get a warrant that pertains to the conditions they would like, then that's fine. I don't want the government to peek in my back window simply because they can. Otherwise, we throw personal privacy and freedom out the window, and succumb to the realm of V for Vendetta and 1984. Big Brother shouldn't be watching me.
Marina O.
Al Qaeda serves as a substitute government for the people. They give the people what the government doesn't, even if what they give them tricks the people into believing in their views. To fight them, we must beat Al Qaeda at being Al Qaeda. We must fill in the gap that the government leaves. By doing that we can educate them that Al Qaeda is not going to help them and they are not a 'good' group of people. We need to give them better schools and more supplies and show them the better world outside of their third-world country. Where women are not shunned and people can rely on their governments. We need to educate them about the wrong Al Qaeda is doing. By doing so we can show the people that we are on their side and we can get their government back on its feet as well. They will stop relying or believing in Al Qaeda and their power will dwindle.
I would rather die by a terrorist’s bomb than live under tyranny. This is not to say, of course, that the current system is a state of tyranny. While I strongly disapprove of the Patriot Act, it has not as of yet affected me strongly and so I find its existence tolerable for the time being.
I am not worried about the time being. I am worried about the future.
The question is, where does the gathering of power to the government stop? The argument, “I don’t care, I’ve got nothing to hide,” is possibly one of the most misguided statements that one can make on the issue at hand. First I will pose the question: if the policy of the government monitoring American citizens for terrorist activities progressed to the point of an Orwellian Argus in which you are monitored constantly both at work and at home, even during your most private moments, would you say the same? While it is true that such an Argus such as the society in 1984 may not be feasible due to the immense manpower and/or computer complexity requirements, it is still a frightening concept. Assuming that such a system were impossible, what if 24/7 monitoring could be enacted upon anyone that the government considered worthy of investigation?
This leads to the other half of the issue. This policy may extend to almost anything. What if all law enforcement were to operate in this fashion? Could the police use something as simple as a speeding ticket as an excuse to go into you documents, tap your telephones, in order to find out more, find out about more serious crimes that may be nothing but idle speculation? And that is assuming that an excuse is needed. What if these searches of private information led to the ability of the government to search anyone, at any time, for any reason? Free speech is currently allowed, but it is likely that with an increase in government power and a decrease in civil liberties, the right to speak one’s mind may deteriorate. Once this theoretical government finds your email to a friend, the one casually complaining that your guy didn’t win the election, you will find that you did in deed have something to hide.
And also, I just like my privacy.
After the attack on the World Trade Center the U.S. government really got on top of its security. Because they have become so strict for good reasons, i am willing to give up some privacy to fight the war on terrorism. By disagreeing to let some of your privacy go people may find you suspicious. I have nothing to hide, therefore i am all for giving up my privacy to s certain degree. It is understandable that people would want to keep certain information to themselves, but when it comes to keeping us all safe some of it just has to be let out. Once the Patriot Act was passed it was possible that police could check any suspicious people that were legal or illegal. All in all i think that the government should just be on the look out for suspicious people rather than all of America.
To fight an enemy such as the sorts of Al Qaeda we must do as we have been doing since after 9/11. We must take the fight to them, on their land, in their country. We must fight an offensive war such that they themselves are put on the defensive such that they can not again attack innocent Americans on our countries own soil.
To properly fight against these terrorists we must put to good use the technology that we have developed over the years for use by our intelligence agencies and military. These include not only predator drones for strategic bombing and recon, but also the use of double agents, spies and technology which allows us to track down terrorists wherever they are on the planet. The government should therefore be given a little more range to keep track if people who are suspected terrorists.
However, none of this would be worth a thing if we didn't have enough troops on the ground to fight enemy combatants and hold strategic areas such that we can properly allow the people of Afghanistan to see how democracy, not oppression, works.
Furthermore, I would be willing to give up some of my personal freedoms for the better of the nation as a whole. if the government wants to look at what books I have taken out at the library and what places I've been shopping at...let them. These tactics, although seen as invasive by some, pose no risk to those who have nothing to hide. If you have nothing to hide then why not let the government practice a method which has been shown to seek out terrorists before they are able to go through with their plans. A patriot is someone that sacrifices for the good of their country, and even the most unwilling could be a patriot by willing to sacrifice their library information so that another 9/11 would not occur.
I think there is such a thin line between what the government can and cannot investigate on Americans. Fighting a war on terrorism without the Patriot Act might be hard, but how do you control the government. With the Patriot Act I do not mind the government investigating into my phone calls or text messages to fight terrorism to keep the United States safe. In times like today, Americans might have to sacrifice a right to privacy to keep us safe as a whole. There are some lines I think the government should never cross. Such as checking in on medical records, bank records, or breaking and entering into a person's home just to investigate without evidence. With the Patriot Act when they are listening in to phone calls does that give them the right to prosecute you if they hear something illegal but had nothing to do with terrorism? This would be my only problem with the government being "big brother". How could we ever set up something to define government boundaries?
Fighting Al Qaeda was put at the top of the to do list post September 11th. After the traumatic experience that all of America had gone through, a majority of citizens were ready and willing to give up some of their freedom and rights. Americans knew this would be key in making sure that terrorism came to an end. However, over time, the Patriot Act has ‘invaded’ citizen’s personal rights and freedoms.
The major con of this information sharing, apposed to the many pros, is that complaints against targeting innocent citizens are being held against the government. People who are not targets of these criminal investigations claim that this unrestricted sharing could lead to the production of massive databases about said citizens. If it meant that not only our communities, cities, and even our country would be a much safer place to live, I would be more than willing to give up privacy. Doing such would lead to a much lessened chance of terrorism in the future.
I think the government should have as much power as they need to keep our country safe. If that means listening in on your conversations and reading your emails/texts, then that is fine. We shouldn't be hiding anything, so what does it matter if they look at these things. If this means keeping our country safe, and potentially stopping terrorists in action then i think it is well worth it. And also, the chances that they are listening to your conversation and reading your emails are very slim, so why does it even matter? Overall, i believe that the government should have as much power needed to our private conversations because it is going to help us in the long run, and possibly catch a terrorist. And not only that, we can have the satisfaction of being safe when at home.
There is no ideal way to fight an enemy like Al Qaeda. There are many possible tactics, but none that I would voluntarily consider without the current war going on. Some ways to fight Al Qaeda and weaken them are to stop buying oil from them, and also stopping all trade with them in general. We could consider discriminating against Muslims, the people who belong to this enemy, in regard to immigration, and simply not let any come into this country. For those who are already in this country, one possibility is to expel them back to their homeland, and away from the land of the free. One might also consider making the Islamic religion illegal in this country, and so on and so forth. These tactics are awful, and I would not wish them upon anyone, but we are in a time of desperation, with no end to this war in sight in the near future.
In terms of fighting the war on terrorism, I am willing to give up some degree of privacy. Based on threats that have previously been put to an end because of the Patriot Act enabling privacy to be compromised, I am willing to accept the possibility that my phone calls would be tappen into and listened to in order to increase our safety. That being said, I believe the government should have enough power to investigate Americans to ensure out safety. If certain worlds or phrases being communicated over phones send up red flags to the government, so be it. The person communicating these ideas is likely to be planning something dangerous if there are enough signs that the phone call needs to be tapped into. Unnescisarily tapping into phone calls, however, I do not support.
The attack on the World Trade center(s) was an event that changed the world forever. It certainly changed many things in the United States, such as the introduction of the Patriot Law, and much tighter security in airports around the globe. I am from an immigrant family, and I am enraged at some of the practices of the United States government, such as the Patriot Law, and am encouraged by other steps, such as the new law in Arizona concerning immigration. I detest the Patriot Law. I always believed that our government and our country was about how proud we were to have such a monumental achievement for the people in the form of democracy and the Bill of Rights. We prided ourselves on being one of the first truly democratic nations and how we are great because we broke away from the chains of tyranny and established a country where no matter what happened, our civil liberties would be protected. However, this Patriot Law, unjustly called so, is exactly what this country does not represent. We cannot and I am not willing to sacrifice civil liberties for the sake of fighting terrorism. I do not care what the enemy is, we cannot start taking away rights from the people and make this country a totalitarian state, because it is certainly headed that way. The American government should have virtually no right to investigate, spy on, tap the wires of, record and study the books read by, etc of the American people. They should not be able to do this (people in the current government). We fight an enemy like Al Qaeda by first pulling all of the troops we have in every base around the globe immediately. We apparently still have troops in Germany, some 60 years after the end of WWII. We need to stop policing the world. Our founder, George Washington, was an isolationist, and his steps kept the young America from being torn apart by alliances and war. We need to follow in his footsteps and do the same. We must get out of the global theater. We must also destroy all poppy/opium fields in Afghanistan to cut off Al Qaeda's funding. We must not fight violence by taking rights from the people.
Fighting an insurgency is completely different from the cut and dry conflict in World War II. We no longer have an easily identifiable enemy or even a final resolution. The war on terror has no end. This conflict will continue for the foreseeable future. The united States is trying its best to properly secure all of its people as it should. I also agree that it may be necessary to give up some civil liberties in a time of crisis in order to help guarantee the safety of all. Thus I agree with the Patriot act in theory and its use in securing the nation. What I fear, however, is a steady erosion of our rights as the conflict goes on. What I respect most about this country is the idea of liberty and freedom of all. Of course liberty and freedom must have boundaries in order for a civilized society to work harmoniously.
The boundaries and provisions to liberty that have existed since this country's inception have served us well throughout our history. I hope that this nation uses the Patriot Act with care so that there are no additional civil liberties that are stripped from the people and that the Act is used solely to aid in the war on terrorism.
I am 100% willing to give up some of my privacy if it will help the war on terror. If the government wants to listen in on my phone conversations and spy on my home, for a good reason, they should be able to. I personally have nothing to hide so I don’t see why I wouldn’t allow the government to do this. I don’t understand why some people are so opposed to this. Some claim they should have absolute privacy from the government because a document hundreds of years old says they have the right. It’s almost as if they value their own personal rights to privacy over national security. The government’s job is to ensure the safety of our citizens and they should be given the power to do their job as best they can. On the other hand, the government shouldn’t be allowed to spy on anyone without a good reason. I don’t believe that the government would abuse this power. They have been elected by the people and if we cannot trust them, who can we trust?
I believe the government has caught U.S citizens that have secretly been plotting with Al Qaeda. If the government just turned their back and ignored suspects of doing this and didn’t spy on them, attacks would inevitably result. The last time I checked the constitution also says I have the right of live. The issue at this point in time, is the government must decide which right is more important- privacy or life. That is my opinion.
The government should only have a certain degree of power to investigate Americans. If they go too far into a person's background, it can potentially infringe on their rights, and open the government up to a potential lawsuit. The government should be allowed to only look at proper submitted paperwork that they would normally have access to without having to ask any company for the info. They also shouldn't be able to see info that one has stored on a personal device or be able to wire-tap someone's conversations. If the government was a little less intrusive into the American people's lives, then the people as a whole would be happier that they have more freedom.
Todd Heritage
In order to fight an enemy like Al Qaeda we must not stop what we have been doing since the terrorists attacks of 9/11. In order to fight them we must put them on the defensive and fight them on their own soil where they cannot harm or hurt innocent Americans. We must send in more ground troops in order to give the people of Afghanistan more rights and abilities to live for themselves and not in oppression. We must use our technological advances in which the Al Qaeda does not have in order to strategically fight them. We have developed far more ways that allow us to gain a great deal of intelligence and information which they do not know we have.
The government should have the power to investigate Americans in order to pick up on things that may not be noticed by the untrained eye and that are noticed very easily through new advances in technology.
I am willing to give up some degree of privacy to a point in order to fight terrorism. Why shouldn’t we allow for the government to see where we go, or see what we buy and talk about with others. We have nothing to hide if we are doing nothing wrong in the first place. Many people see this as invasive but there is no risk what so ever if there is nothing to hide. In order to better protect myself and the nation in which I live I am certainly willing to give up some privacy.
To fight Al Qaeda, we need to continue fighting on their land so we do not have to endure another horrific attack like 9/11. Our technological advancements need to be put to use during this war and we need to make sure we have enough troops to win this war. As much as I hate to send troops over, all of it would be for nothing if we lost because we didn’t have enough soldiers out there. I have nothing to hide, regarding my background or anything and I believe everyone should be willing to let the government have a right to our privacy to track down these terrorists. If you have something to hide, then you deserve to be caught. This turns into a matter of selfishness, and I think for your country, you should allow the government more access to keep our country from being attacked again.
Personally, I do not mind giving up some privacy in order to fight the war on terrorist. I'd rather feel safe with less privacy, than having a greater fear of terrorist. After 9/11 the country experienced a great shock that caused the government to increase its power in investigations which I feel is a good path to keep America safe. Currently we are finding American citizens, with no direct ties to the Al Qaeda join the terrorist groups. This shows that even citizens can not be trusted, and I feel the government has the right to do their best to seek out these individuals to help prevent future attacks. I do not mind having less privacy because I am not doing anything wrong. If I had stumbled upon a site about Al Qaeda I believe I'd be able to deal with the government keeping a closer tab on me because I have nothing to hide. I feel that it is better to be safe than sorry and I do not want to go through the pain of 9/11 victum family members experience.
I feel that the fight against Al Qaueda is extremely difficult. Their demands are inappropriate in my opinion and should not be met. I feel that one way we could fight an enemy like Al Qaeda is to spread education to those areas to help show the public a different perspective. I am glad I do not have to directly deal with this fight due to its difficulty, but the best way to help protect America is to try and prevent future attacks. By limiting privacy we will have an easier time distinguishing suspicious characters and by spreading education we can help limit those willing to join Al Qaueda.
I am willing to give up some of my privacy to fight the war on terrorism. My opinion 10 years ago would of been different, but after the incident that took place in the world trade center my thoughts changed. After 9/11 you can not go anywhere like airports without being completely searched from head to toe. With that said, i do agree and realize why the searches now are so much more intense from before, but there is a certain point that I would not take. For example for the people they take aside randomly and strip search. I would get mad for being searched because i would feel like i would be being accused of something that i didnt do. It also takes up a lot of your time, making some individuals have to hurry because it is wasting time when their flight would be leaving. As annoying as some of this could be, in the end it is all worth it so the incident on 9/11 never occurs again or anything like it. Therefore, i believe most American citizens would be willing to be taken aside and searched in order to help my country.
The problem with trying to fight a war against an enemy like Al Qaeda is that members of the group are among us, and it is getting increasingly difficult to target these individuals. In order to protect our country from another attack like 9/11, I am okay with the fact that the government could be tapping into phone calls and keeping records of websites we visit. I feel that knowing I am safe in my home is well worth the slight overstep into my privacy. I don’t think the Patriot Act infringes upon our civil liberties as United States citizens if its main purpose is to keep our people safe from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. I do feel that if it isn’t kept under control, the government’s power over this issue could get a little too strong (especially if they start to invade too much on the privacy of innocent, unsuspicious people), but for now I feel like I still have my sense of security and my privacy.
I do believe that in order to defeat an extremest group such as Al Qaeda, the government is forced to do some investigations on its home field. I don't have a problem with the PATRIOT Act because I believe that fighting such a radical group, its going to take some radical measures, and I would much rather have some telephone calls listened in on that have another catastrophic event such as 9/11 happen again. However, I do believe that the U.S. government should not be allowed to have a field day on wire taps or tracing and that there should be some regulations, and that the main focus should still be on the middle east, and not on the possible members here in the United States. Since 9/11 and things like the PATRIOT Act have been put into place, we have not been attacked again, so therefore we must be doing something right. Also, when the Twin Towers fell, the whole country backed up the war against terrorism, and its not until a couple of years later that people are questioning the policies of the government, so obviously people have forgotten what it felt like to be under attack. Its really quite sad that its gotten to the point where people would rather risk another attack than maybe sacrifice one of your e-mails possibly getting read. I also think that its easy for people in like Cheshire to say that they want their privacy, but it might be a lot different for people who live by national lank marks, or other targeted areas that might like the extra security. Therefore, since I believe that we need to win this war against terrorism, I am willing to make the small sacrifice of maybe having an e-mail read for the sake of national security and preventing future terrorist attacks.
I think the best way to fight Al Qaeda is to fight them on their own soil and in their own home. I think this is the only way we have a chance because Al Qaeda is unpredictable and are willing to kill themselves just to injury the enemy. If we were to fight them on our soil they would hurt a lot of the innocent people in the country. By fighting them in Afghanistan we have a chance to make them more concerned and conscious of what they are doing because they won’t want to hurt their own people.
I also believe that government should be given the right to investigate Americans. I think they should be allowed to do this so that they can keep other citizens safe. The government shouldn’t be allowed to investigate anyone they want they should need a reason but if they have a reason I think they should have the power to investigate that American. The government just wants to keep the people safe and I believe they should go to any measure necessary so they can meet the goal.
I am willing to give up my privacy so that our country is safe. I want to stop this war that has been going on for years. The only way to go about doing this is to allow the government to tap into our phone calls and investigate people that they believe will harm our country. If it means giving up privacy to stop the war and to keep the people safe I am willing to go to that degree to do so.
Dom Severino
I am willing to give up mostly all of the privacy that I hold in this country to help fight the war on terrorism to a certain degree. I feel that after 9/11, every single person in the United States should feel the same way. I feel that the government shouldn't be allowed to strip search you or to even go through your items without reasonable suspicion. I feel that if there is a reason I would be fine with it, but if there is no reason I feel that they would be wasting my time trying to accuse me for doing something wrong. I feel that they should be allowed to search you with reasonable suspicion somewhere, but I don’t believe that they could just pull you off to the side and search you and your belongings.
I believe, that in order to keep the American people safe, the United States government must take SOMEWHAT invasive action against its citizens. Now, this is to a degree, not full fledged spying on the country's people. I believe that this gathering of information should be carried out through various methods by the American government to a point. Therefore, I believe in order to search or investigate citizens to make it worth while, there has to be some reasonable cause for them to do such a thing. It is nearly impossible to listen and watch over 300 million phone calls and emails, with most likely a miniscule amount of them actually pertaining to threatening acts against the United States. In order to have one man on every single person's personal doings, the United States government would need to employ millions and millions of workers or make very costly machines to sort through key words or phrases, neither of which should occur because it would be a waste of time, in my opinion, as those same workers could be out in domestic law enforcement, international affairs, the military or in regular jobs out in other parts of the United States that would be a much more economical use of their time as employers of the United States. The government should limit their investigations to key individuals in the country or in other words, citizens that have been known to attempt, plot, or carry out harmful acts of terrorism on the United States. On the flip side, when calls and emails are coming into the United States, the same measures should be taken. An Al Qaeda leader is not likely to target a regular, hardworking "9-5 businessman" in the United States, rather they would most likely be contacting an individual who is known to be related to terrorist acts. Thus, in conclusion, I believe that the United States should have the ability to SELECTIVELY investigate on the citizens of the United States of America to ensure the safety of our country from the inevitable threat of terrorism in today's modern world.
I believe, that in order to keep the American people safe, the United States government must take SOMEWHAT invasive action against its citizens. Now, this is to a degree, not full fledged spying on the country's people. I believe that this gathering of information should be carried out through various methods by the American government to a point. Therefore, I believe in order to search or investigate citizens to make it worth while, there has to be some reasonable cause for them to do such a thing. It is nearly impossible to listen and watch over 300 million phone calls and emails, with most likely a miniscule amount of them actually pertaining to threatening acts against the United States. In order to have one man on every single person's personal doings, the United States government would need to employ millions and millions of workers or make very costly machines to sort through key words or phrases, neither of which should occur because it would be a waste of time, in my opinion, as those same workers could be out in domestic law enforcement, international affairs, the military or in regular jobs out in other parts of the United States that would be a much more economical use of their time as employers of the United States. The government should limit their investigations to key individuals in the country or in other words, citizens that have been known to attempt, plot, or carry out harmful acts of terrorism on the United States. On the flip side, when calls and emails are coming into the United States, the same measures should be taken. An Al Qaeda leader is not likely to target a regular, hardworking "9-5 businessman" in the United States, rather they would most likely be contacting an individual who is known to be related to terrorist acts. Thus, in conclusion, I believe that the United States should have the ability to SELECTIVELY investigate on the citizens of the United States of America to ensure the safety of our country from the inevitable threat of terrorism in today's modern world.
I am definitely willing to give up some of my privacy rights to help fight the war on terrorism. I feel that the government should have the right to take away some of our privacy to protect us. I would much rather feel safe and have fewer privacy rights than be in danger. I have no problem with the government taking away some of my privacy because I have never done anything wrong and have nothing to hide from them. Other people here in the U.S. have been helping and aiding with terrorist attacks and the government needs to find these people. By taking away more of our privacy the government can find people who are helping Al Qaeda and protect our country.
Al Qaeda is a very strong group of people who are difficult to fight. I feel that the best way to fight them is to do it on their own land, and keep the fighting out of the United States. They have no problem destroying our land, so we should have no problem fighting on their land. As shown in 9/11 they will go to many extremes and even end their own lives to attack us. Although we should not end our own mens lives we do need to put in great effort to fight this group of extremists.
In order to fight a group like Al-Qaeda, the fighting must take place on their soil. Their group has historically hated America to a degree in which they will do anything to harm us. Therefore, we cannot give them the chance to terrorize us again. Al-Qaeda is also very secretive and the only way to catch inside jobs in America is to infringe upon our privacy to a certain degree. This calls for the USA PATRIOT Act.
I personally believe that the government should stay out of my life. I don’t want my privacy invaded; I don’t even like that the government can locate me through my cell phone. However, during times of war I do believe that some liberties may have to be sacrificed for the sake of the protection of the whole. The Patriot Act allows the government to gather information on individuals without a warrant. This is reasonable during time of war if there are individuals of reasonable suspicion. By tracking suspicious individuals, terrorist acts could be prevented. This tracking is only acceptable during times of war; therefore, I am willing to give up some degree of privacy for the sake of the war on terrorism and the safety of America. We as Americans should be able to realize that the government is only temporarily taking this liberty to protect us and it is the role of the government to run the military and protect the nation as a whole. It’s been done quite a few times before. During the World War II, the United States passed the Sedition Act of 1918. The Sedition Act made it illegal to speak out profanely about the U.S. government, the Constitution, the flag, or the U.S. military. It also made it a felony to urge the reduced production of necessary war materials and to advocate, defend, the doing of any of those acts. It was also illegal to speak German. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and it was also suspended again by President Bush in 2006. So the Patriot Act is certainly not the first time the citizens of America had to sacrifice certain rights during time of war. This war is no different.
Honestly I don’t see any harm in the Patriot Act. All it can do is help the Government keep the people safe. If phones are tapped I could honestly care less, I don’t have any thing to hide or any thing to feel ashamed or embarrassed about. After 9/11 the U.S. was in fear of every thing, the Patriot Act can hopefully bring an end to this fear and help Americans see the good in life again. The act does nothing to censure our speech or après the people in any way. Also phones, and Internet are not necessities of life. There is no law saying Americans need to have a phone line, so if phones are technique a privilege not a right, why cant the government monitor what is said? Id worth have a conversation listened to then a few thousand people die in a terrorist attack, but maybe that’s just me (I really hope not).
I do not understand why this makes it harder for agencies to collaborate and collect with other agencies. If protecting the people is the goal, why not keep every one in the loop? The more shared information the better. Because that means more people know what’s going on. If the agencies band together they would be ore powerful and much smarter then any one could be alone.
Nick Sasso
I think that it is a very tough task to fight an enemy like al queda. I say that because they aren’t in one specific country, they are all over the place and have all different types of people. This enemy attacks from all different types of ways but it seems like their main way is something that takes time to plan. So, to fight them you have to always be on guard and have good security.
I also think that the government should have all the power that they need to fight against an enemy. Especially, like al queda because they have already attacked us once and we are trying to prevent that from happening again. The government is just trying to keep us all safe and if they need to invade our privacy to do that then I think they should be able to do that. Just think about it, if that can save the life of you or many other American’s then it is a small fee to pay.
I would be willing to give up some of my privacy in order to fight the war on terrorism. In my opinion it’s no big deal for the government to know what I search on the internet or any of the other information that they can access. If people have nothing to hide, then I don’t think it should matter what the government knows about you. Also, if giving up some of your privacy is not disrupting your day to day life then it’s worth it in order to help our country fight terrorism.
I believe that the government should be able to investigate Americans to a certain degree. We are living in dangerous and unsecure times, and if we have nothing to hide then we shouldn’t be concerned with what the government should see. But only to a degree; I don’t think that it should be able to see every little detail of things we do or look at. But it would be for everyone’s benefit if someone who was suspected of terrorism could have their dealings in life investigated. The government is not just going to look through someone’s private information when they have no reason. I am definitely willing to give up some degree of my privacy in order to fight the war on terrorism. I have nothing to hide, so whatever they want to see of mine they can. Granted, I don’t want them to come search my house, etc, but I wouldn’t mind them searching my internet records etc if they thought it would be beneficial in some way.
I think it is a very tough task to fight an enemy like al queda because they aren’t in one specific country, they are all over the place and have all different types of people. This enemy attacks from all different types of ways but it seems like their main way is something that takes time to plan. To fight them you have to always be on guard and have good security. I am willing to give up some of my privacy to fight the war on terrorism. After 9/11 everywhere you go you have to be searched especially in airports. this is done to be safe and to protect the people around you. There is a certain point that I would not take. I would not want to be accused of something that I would have no attention of doing or perform doing. I am willing to help my country but to a point that I feel is not right to do. I am willing to give up some degree of privacy because if not, this war will never end.
-Are you willing to give up some degree of privacy to fight the war on terrorism?
I do not think that we as Americans should have to give up our privacy to fight the war on terrorism. The government should only have the power to check on people once a year for suspicious activity. As Americans we are guaranteed the right of freedom and giving up our privacy for terrorism is not right.
The government should only have the power to investigate somebody if that have a solid reason to do so.
Fighting Al Qaeda is very difficult for the United States. Members are always amongst us and appear the same as an every-day citizen. They are very hard to locate and some are constantly in hiding. Since Al Qaeda poses a very dangerous threat to the U.S., our country must always be cautious when protecting the American people. Though it is crucial to fight Al Qaeda on their own soil, it increases the chance of taking the lives of innocent Afghanistan citizens.
To protect our country from another terrorist attack like 9/11, I support the government in listening in on our phone calls and recording the websites we search. Though some may find this to be an invasion of privacy, I feel that in order to keep the U.S. safe, the government needs to increase their security. Hopefully with the help of this, officials can track down on suspicious people easier. As long as the government does not take advantage of this process, I believe that it will greatly increase the chance of finding someone who has reasonable wrong-doing. I am willing to give up some of my privacy in order for our country to stay well protected and to prevent another terrorist attack.
karen novak
On fighting the war in Al Qauda its a hard task to do, because they are so elusive. The government should only have power to investigate people that have done something wrong. They shouldnt be allowed to question them if they are just a certain race. If you commit a crime or you look suspicious then they have the right to question. I would not be willing to give up some degree of my privacy because its not fair because my privacy is my own and other people dont have the right to look at my stuff if i havent done anything wrong.I understand that there are people fighting for us, but its not going to help that the government is looking through my stuff.
In order to fight an enemy like Al Qaeda, Americans must be willing to give up some degree of privacy. To fight the war, we need to keep all US soil safe, and keep the war as proactive in their land as possible. They have already shown the damage they can do to our country, so we have to be offensive and show how we can fight back. We cannot show any weakness so we must use the advanced technology we have to investigate and locate threats. The intelligence agencies need to be aware of what is going on whenever there is a slight threat. Clearly there are still some faults in the system when it comes to the intelligence agencies so I would be willing to give up some degree of privacy if it meant the US soil would be safer and the war on terror would be progressing. If there is nothing to hide from the government, the agencies should be able to have access to more in order to find those who are working against the US and with Al Qaeda.
Certain government agencies have a job to do, which mostly consists of protecting America and its people. In order for these agencies to do their jobs, it is sometimes necessary to prod around inside our own nation. Of course I feel that they must be justified to conduct an investigation on an American, but if it is in the best interest of the nation, then it should be allowed.
I would personally be willing to give up some degree of privacy to fight the war on terrorism. I have nothing to hide, and so I would stand behind the government as they try to flush out those who are national threats.
I believe that while it is important to maintain our county’s security, it is imperative that in doing so, we do not infringe too much on our citizens’ civil liberties. In a time of conflict, especially against terrorism, the United States government sometimes must take extraordinary measures to keep the country secure. However, there is a tricky balance between security and the rights of the people. The USA PATRIOT act is certainly not unique in US history. We have limited the rights of American citizens during times of war before. However, this action sometimes had disastrous results, extraordinary measures in the name of security becoming an excuse to systematically deny citizens’ their rights. In World War II, we detained citizens of Japanese decent in internment camps, in the name of “security.” During the Cold War, the US government terrorized anyone who was even suspected to hold communist views. It is important that we do not use our “war against terrorism” as an excuse to wantonly violate the privacy of American citizens. I honestly cannot come up with a good solution to balance our need for security with our civil liberties. However, it makes me extremely uncomfortable that the US government has been given such power to violate my privacy. If we allow the government to infringe on this element of our civil liberties, it becomes easier to justify taking more of our rights away from us in the name of security. We must ensure that in our “war against terror,” we do not take away from our citizens the basic freedoms that we claim to be fostering in the Middle East.
The fears of terrorism are overestimated, and it is in fact the fear of terrorism that is the greatest impact of any given act of terrorism. As many people died in the years following 9/11 from car accidents because they drove instead of flying as died from the terrorist attacks. Many other people lost valuable time from their lives being involved in investigations and new security protocols. If, for example, a new security scan at an air port takes 1 minute and is done to 1 in 10 people at a (decent sized) airport with 4,000 passengers an hour, then 400 minutes per hour are wasted. At this rate, the new security measure costs 11.7 average lifespans per year *at a single airport*. It is important to recognize these costs when considering how to fight terrorism- these are hidden costs that do not see the light of day, small amounts of time shaved off of the lives of millions. Far more obvious to us are the violent deaths of a terrorist attack, though the true effects are clear in these examples of how terror and not terrorism is often the greater threat.
This is by no means to suggest that terrorism is not a priority- terrorists (certainly including the current crop of Islamic Fundamentalists) are evil, wrong, and never justified. Steps must be taken to curtail their actions in the United States and around the world. Often this does require serious intelligence gathering, delving into information that is very widespread and often using invasive techniques. While justified in use against proven terrorists or those how have been shown to demonstrate a clear and present danger, the costs of allowing the enhanced surveillance techniques to be legalized must be weighed. As Benjamin Franklin once stated, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" We must understand what we sacrifice when we begin to infringe on our own principles in the name of safety. If we sacrifice our liberty and our morality to win the fight against terrorism, then have we truly won? While I do not believe that the USAPATRIOT Act remotely approaches the constraints of sharia law or other extremist philosophies, it is important to remember what it is we are standing for and what it is we are trying to protect. How can we expect the world to rally around us if our first response to being attacked by those who despise us for our principles is to sacrifice those very principles?
I do not believe that the government has a right to violate a person's right to privacy. The idea that the government could quite possibly be monitoring my every move on the internet, or my phone calls, is simply terrifying. At what point does this become a police state? At what point does George Orwell's nightmare scenario in 1984 become a reality? At what point does the government monitor our thoughts?
I will be the first to admit that I don't know how to fight an enemy like Al Qaeda. This war is different than any war we've fought previously. There is no identifiable enemy. That being said, I don't believe that a war justifies cutting into the rights of American citizens.
To fight an enemy like Al Qaeda, we must continue what we have been doing since the attacks on September 11. Fighting them on their own soil would be the most sensible decision because our government is dealing with a radical group, a spontaneous and unpredictable group of dangerous terrorists that could potential hurt countless of innocent Americans. There must be more troops sent over to Afghanistan so we continue our trend of fighting them while they’re on the defensive, ultimately putting the United States in the driver seat. The government should be allowed the power to investigate Americans in any means necessary to gain intelligence in information. Our countries security and well being is at stake, therefore compromising the privacy of American’s for the entire countries security is not a prominent sacrifice being made, it’s necessary. We should allow the government to go where we go, or track what we buy, or even listen in on phone conversations. If we are innocent there is nothing for us to hide, and nothing for Americans to worry about. All this would be done in the interest of our country and because our government is willing to put forth such an effort in protecting us, we should allow them to do what needs to be done, no matter what.
Protecting American's lives should be the most important role of the government. If that means listening in on suspicious calls or doing background checks, then they should have a right to do it. Having someone listen to your calls is much better then being bombed and losing thousands of civilian lives.
Al Qaeda is fighting U.S troops. It is very hard to fight them, because they do not have any military uniforms and almost always blend into society. To fix this problem, the U.S. needs to establish a stable government overseas. Schools need to be built and basic rights granted. If people are happy with the government and their lives, they will be less likely to join Al Qaeda and the amount violence would become significantly reduced.
when the world trade centers were attacked we felt the need to do something. this was justified, our people died,
we needed to. so we created more intelegence agencies and started this so called "war on terrorism", but we barely
know how to fight it, let alone finish it. we fight an enemy like Al Queda through technology and careful planning,
paired with alot of time. we cant just go out on a wing like we have been, this enemy works differently than most
enemies we've had in the past.
Principles and Security are mutually exclusive to a degree, they should coexist without interfering with one
another, because each can throw the other off balance.
The government should have only relative power to investigate americans. compared to the amount most people think
is nessesary, the amount we should have is very little. there's a fine line between paranoia and reasonable suspicion.
i'm not willing to give up some degree of privacy to fight the war on terrorism. because not only do i think we're
fighting it in the wrong way, but we're directing our attention towards those who arent relevant in the war on
terrorism whatsoever.
The government should have the right to investigate a person if they have enough information to search them. But I do not believe in searching someone because they have the same traits as a terrorist, unless the government see's that a person as threat.The government can have good enough security without having to accuse innocent people. I would be willing to give up privacy to help fight against terrorism, but only to a certain point. I agree with people wanting to have privacy, but if you have nothing to hide then why be so against it? I also think that the government should have all the power that they need to fight against an enemy. Especially, like Al Qaeda because they have already attacked us once and we want to prevent from that ever happening again. So I do believe the government should be checking in every once in a while on the average every day American.
After the 9/11 attacks, I think that it is important now than ever to protect our nation with national security. If that means allowing government officials to listen in on phone conversations of American citizens in order to track down terrorists, then I think it is necessary. Personally, I wouldn't care if my phone conversations were listened to, because I have nothing to hide. I would just feel safer knowing that threats are being closely monitored. Although this may keep our country safer, I do think that this method should not get too out of hand. There may be a possibility that once this starts happening, then the government will want to start more privacy-invading methods to monitor threats. That is when it may start to cross the line. For now, I don't think there is anything wrong with it as long as our nation's security is the first priority.
Fighting a terrorist enemy is a difficult thing. Fighting one using advanced guerilla techniques is near impossible. In the war in Vietnam, the Us walked away with their only military loss in history. THere is no scripted way to fight a guerilla unit and they are uncontainable. Peace is the only real way to reason with such forces, as violence is only a catalyst for more violence.
The USA PATRIOT ACT was a good plan at first that developed in racial profiling and a misuse or lack of use of Habeus Corpus. I think that in a land based of of freedom that peoples rights should not be violated. Privacy is not an actual right, but it is like an unwritten rule to provide people privacy. The US citizens deserve warrants before jail sentences
I feel the government should have some power too go into our privacy if you are a suspect or suspect-able. After the attacks on 9/11 every where we go, we get searched to have a safe time, if the FBI and other forces we would be alot safer.
How do we fight an enemy like Al Qaeda? Are principles and security mutually exclusive, at least to a degree? How much power to investigate Americans should the government have? Am I willing to give up some degree of my privacy to fight the war on terrorism? Are these questions we should be asking? Arent there more important questions to ask? How many licks DOES it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? Can we, as a species, eat just one Lays Potato Chip? And just who is the person behind the Six Flags Old Dancing Guy? Are these the heart pounding questions that affect our daily lives? No, of course not, right? Do you feel safe right now? Is someone listening to your thoughts as you read this? Are you afraid of the CIA or FBI getting a hold of your grandmas favorite pie recipe as she describes it over the phone in a painstakingly senilic way? Is what that guy said to that girl at some point at that party last night important but don't tell anybody I said that because I don't want to hear her drama? What? If you are intending harm to other people, do you get the same privileges as someone who just wants to know what time to meet at the train station tomorrow? Is it going to be the end of all your freedoms if someone hears how much you hated the movie last night but Taylor Lautnor is just so dreamy all while the police bust down your neighbors door and catch him as he coordinates a surprise attack on Marine Forces in the middle of an Unspecifiedistani virtual city? Is it right to believe everyone is a bloodthirsty explosive-crazed Jihadist until proven innocent? Is it worth the 7 lives saved in a New York City subway if the police know which sex lines you called between the hours of 1:37 and 4:41 AM? Is the world being threatened by a terrorist right now? Is Doctor Evil standing on the moon pointing a huge laser at the Polar icecaps demanding 1 million dollars from the UN? Will Jack Bauer ever go to the bathroom while he is saving the world? How much do you really know? How much should you really care? Is what color you were planning on painting the den really more important that a sleeper cell of young hooligans trying to knock down all of the credit card companies's building in order to erase all the worlds debt? Bugger if I know, all I want is a large cheese with bacon.
Did you know that if you mix equal parts of gasoline and frozen orange juice concentrate you can make napalm?
CAPTCHA - sparg
Jamie B
I don't mind giving a lot of my privacy to the government if it means ending terrorism. If the government can see what we are doing it will make america a more safe place to live and elimate terrorism. Also by allowing the government to see what we are doing online and on our phones it could help stop dangerous situations involving hurting others or even worse terrorism. I do feel that the government would not abuse the ability of spying or listening to conversions because they just want to make america a more safe place for the people. The government should have a good reason to listen in on others before hand but it would be better for america in the long run. if they were listening to me I also would not mind letting them because I have nothing to hide and if I have to sacrifice giving up that freedom to help the war and make america safe I would.
When fighting with Al Qaeda we should just prepare in advance for future attacks. Also we should keep people learning about Al Qaeda and terrorism because then we can stop people from even terrorizing. Also I think we should make airports more secure so people can feel safer there and not get hurt by terrorism attacks on planes. I feel we have done well in keeping the country safer in airports by having metal detectors and having The Deptment of Homeland Security watching suspicious acts toward others.
i couldn't tell you how to fight an enemy like Al Qaeda because we still haven't figured that out and we are going into almost a decade of fighting them. Are principles and security mutually exclusive, at least to a degree? How much power to investigate Americans should the government have? These are very debatable topics before are on both sides of the fence some people feel that the government shouldn't have complete control and shouldn't be able to invade your privacy. I am willing to give up all of my privacy if that is what it takes to prevent another disaster. Terrorism is so scary you never know what is going to happen. i believe the government should have the right to investigate in order to protect our country. 911 left the country in fear and still does today almost a decade ago. Terrorism is a had war to fight within America and Al Qaeda outside of the country.
Ryan Hobson
I believe that in order to gain intelligence that could lead to success on the war on terror, Americans should be content with the idea that the government could see what you are doing. If you are not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have to worry about it. Because Al Queda is not just in one region in the world, it is very possible that members of extreme terrorist groups could be living among us. The only way to gain knowledge of these people is to investigate. However, I do also think that if something like this were too happen, more emphasis should be placed on people that appear suspicious. I don't think that the government should have any impact on our lives but in order to retaliate and defeat terrorist groups, it may be a necessary action.
Following Pearl Harbor, Japanese immigrants were detained in internment camps for the sake of “American security.” Though we live in a different time, many of the issues our nation faces today have not changed. Where do we draw the line between ensuring the safety of American people and blindly subjugating innocent people?
It is important that the government be given the information and freedom it needs to protect the American people. I, for one, would be more than willing to allow the government access to my e-mail account if by doing so, I was contributing to the safety of the nation. If access to a person’s internet search history enables the government to seek out terrorists, I have no objections in letting them take a look. The PATRIOT Act poses no risk to those who have nothing to hide.
On the other hand, the possible future abuse of such a power must be taken into account. Does our nation not pride itself on freedom and liberty? Where does the line need to be drawn? There is not an easy answer to issues such as these.
The American government should only have the power to invade a civilian's privacy if they have reasonable suspecion. This does not mean that they can choose to search a civilian merely because they're wearing a turban or look like a terrorist. The government should only be allowed to search someone if their behavior resembles that of a terrorist. This should also apply towards telephone and internet privacy. I do not believe the government should have the right to monitor civilian's telephone calls and internet activity because I believe it would be and unreasonable breach of privacy. However, I believe if someone has had a history of suspecious behavior or criminal background, then the government should ahve a right to monitor their means of communication.
Al Qaeda is a tricky enemy because they tend to blend into their environment and it isnt until its too late that they reveal themselves. They also promote and recuit members on the internet. i think the best way to fight Al Qaeda is to send in spies to their camps to monitor their activity, gather intel on when and where they're planning on attacking as well as discovering where their major meetings and gatherings are.
Principles and security are exclusive because searching someone for the sake of having to is different from searching someone for the sake of security reasons. A big problem that this deals into in racial profiling and whether if its principle or security reasons. I personally believe that we should ONLY be able to search someone if and when we have reasonable suspecion and not just by judging appearance.
In the present world it is very hard to fight an enemy like Al Qaeda. They could be anywhere and anyone. This does not, however, give the government the right to randomly search people with out probable cause. What we need to do is up our overall security to prevent further attacks. Methods like having more security personnel at higher risk areas, requiring background checks for any job that makes you responsible for the safety of others, and using more advanced technology to check people going through security lines. The Americans citizens right to privacy is one of our most important rights and should not be removed without probable cause.
In order to fight an enemy like Al Qaeda we need to continue with the programs we implimented post 9/11. We need to keep the fight out of America so i believe that we should send more troops to show the Afghan people that we are true to our word and that democracy is far better then government oppression. I also believe that giving up some privacy is nessessary for us to gather intelligence on our enemies and stop attacks before they happen in our country. Personally i believe if you dont have anything to hide then you shouldnt be worried.
I think the we can only fight Al quaeda with big waves of soldiers and make lots of sacrifices, in which we cant make...the Government should be able to look at what we do but to a certain degree, because how else can we be assured safety. To end the war i would sign in to every restaurant have a pass around my neck for a certain while just to end the war on terro
Jason Bailin: Absent when assigned:
We fight an enemy like Al Qaeda by nuking them.. just playing. But anyways, you have to use certain strategic strategy to fight Al Qaeda, obviously my best bet is US is using all their tactics possible on them but they aren't getting anywhere, they need to play Al Qaeda's way and then they can learn their style and then attack and defeat them.. or going back to my first line, we can just nuke them. That would make stuff A LOT more simpler.. maybe in the short run.
Post a Comment