Required Readings:
"Travesty in New York"
Friday, November 20, 2009
"A Battlefield in the Courtroom." Friday, November 20, 2009
Respond to one or more of the following prompts:
- Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
- Should foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay have the same rights as Americans? Should they be tried in civilian courts? In the US? Explain your answer.
- Are the provisions of the PATRIOT ACT needed to protect us or do they undermine our freedom?
- You may also contribute any other related thoughts or observations from the video, articles or class discussions.
76 comments:
It is hard to know where the best place to try and detain terrorist suspects would be, as in any situation there are drawbacks.
A trial in the United States could be dangerous, but I do believe that this is the place for terrorist suspects to be tried. They have been accused of attacking the US and/or its people, and should therefore be submitted to the mercy of the US Court System. They allegedly attacked the United States, so the United States should be allowed to control every aspect of the trial in their punishment. In this way, it is reasonable to hold the trial in the United States. However, in any case, a trial for the crimes held in the US will bring even more attention to the accused, showing them in a light that may make them be seen as a martyr by others: as Krauthammer says, "what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making KSM a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security." I find it to be an extreme interpretation of what will come of the trial held in the U.S.--however, publicizing his reasoning and plans that went into effect before the attacks he is accused of having committed will only spread his ideology. His followers will see him elevated on the stand, more the hero for his enduring the trial and spreading his ideals. It is also an issue of security, as any trial for a violent crime is, but even more so. The intensity of feelings on both sides are magnified. This type of trial would also allow the accused of many rights which are controversial: rights that American citizens normally would receive. Many believe this to be too generous, and I, in some ways, agree. In such a crime against humanity, it would seem to be too much to give someone any rights to an unbiased trial (if that's even possible). However, I see those rights as necessary and proper if the accused is tried in a U.S. civilian court.
Trying a suspect in places like Guantanamo Bay is something I believe to be a worrisome idea. Though it does provide a veil of seclusion in some ways, and would prevent to some degree the publicity that I mentioned above, it is too much of a liability. With the controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay recently, there is just no reason to continue having prisoners there. Having a trial there is just of no use besides the relative "privacy" it would provide. If placed in the U.S. the activities going on there will be more easy to maintain a guard over. The treatment of prisoners could be more closely monitored by officials. This would merely prevent controversy over the treatment of the accused. (Or at least help to decrease it) I think that holding a trial anywhere but in the U.S. would leave many nervous at what is going on behind the scenes of the trial. It would separate the nation from the trial which represents so much of our history to U.S. citizens.
Robinson declares his opposition to critics of the trial in the United States. I agree with him, that the trial can be held there reasonably. However, I see issues in his argument: "The critics can't really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury -- sitting just blocks from Ground Zero -- will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality." I do think it obvious in its outcome, however, the trial itself would stand for the accused's own jihadist views. He is being prosecuted for his extremism, which makes him a martyr. Therefore his ideas are reinforced. This seems to be a hole in Robinson's logic, though I do agree with him on supporting the trial's being held on U.S. grounds. That is the one part that keeps me from fully endorsing the idea of holding the trial on American soil. His becoming a martyr seems almost worth not having the trial in the United States. However, it still seems to be the wisest option.
I do not think foreign nationals accused of terrorism should have the same rights as Americans. If terrorists are willing to go against our laws by killing innocent people, why should they receive the same rights as Americans? Terrorists are technically taking away rights of people by killing them.
I do think a terrorist should have a trial. However, I do believe their should be specific courts for people like that. They pose a serious threat to Americans. For example, the September 11th attack. They do not deserve the same rights as Americans if they are going to bomb our country.
In the article a Battlefield in the Courtroom it says a civilian trial would benefit us because it would show that we are not afriad of terrorists and their followers. I disagree with these because it is normal to be afraid of someone like a terrorist. Their motive is to hurt our country and they need to be stopped, but the way to stop them is not by rewarding them with equal treatment. They should not receive the same treatment as the people they are trying to destroy that being us.
I believe that people held in Guantanamo Bay should have the same rights as American citizens and be treated as if they were in jail. I believe this because treating them worse than animals accomplishes nothing except to expose how cold and cruel we really are. I do not see any benefits to torturing the detained because they are willing to die for their belief so what are we going to gain from this torture. Also torturing these people does nothing to get the rest of the world to side with us on this conflict.
I believe that the terrorist should be tried in the world court. I believe this because what they did, although it happened in America, did not affect only Americans. Also if they are not citizens of America then why would they be tried as civilians when they are in fact only visitors?
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security. If it is going to help with terrorism and to prevent acts like september 11th from happening again, I think it is worth it because it isn't like the government is using the power for unecessary reasons. It is for the benefit and security our nation which is most important in my eyes.
I think the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are needed to protefct us. Some of these provisions include searching of public records such as phone records, library records, school records, ect., and special courts for warrents to search. If the US governement suspect someone as a danger to the nation or as a terrorist in our country, I would want these things searched so the governement can make sure and figure out if they are. This will only help the terrorist situation. Even though people may view the PATRIOT Act provisions as undermining to our freedom, I believe it is necessary in order to protect the nation. If people have nothing to hide then they shouldn't care what the government does in order to protect the nation. The people that care are either very greedy and caught up in the rights they have or are hiding something that could make them a threat.
I would definitely be willing to sacrifice any of my individual liberties in order to be more secure. If doing this would reduce the risk of being attacked like the 9/11 incident, then giving up some of my individual liberties is definitely worth it. Not only would giving up these liberties ensure me more security but it would maintain a more stable, strong and secure country in general because we’ll know we are protected against terrorism. Again, doing this would allow every individual to be more secure, and to me, that is a much more important issue.
I believe strongly that foreign nationals accused of terrorism and in places such as Guantanamo Bay should not have the same rights as Americans. The should not be tried in any sort of court because the jury would already have information about the case and it would lead to biased case and a unfair trial. Instead of going through this procedure if they are guilty of a terrorist like crime they should be dealt with by means of death. There is not court system that would allow a fair trial.
Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
I am willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security. If giving up a few rights protects the well being of our country, I'm all for it. The Provisions of the Patriot Act allow the Government access to all kinds of documents. Such as phone records, library records, and school records. If someone is a suspect of terrorism, I believe the Government has every right to these records. The Patriot Act was only made for the protection of our country and for the prevention of another attack like 9/11. Although it may violate some rights or civil liberties, I do think the Patriot Act is necessary. If it meant that our country will be more safe and secure, I would be willing to sacrifice those rights. I think it is completely necessary to take every precaution possible in protecting the well being of the United States. If you have nothing to hide, then there shouldn't be any objection to the Government having access to these records.
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security. I believe this because I would rather be secure and protected with some liberties than rather live in fear with all my liberties. Also I feel that the liberties we do have to give up won’t even be that noticeable without them in our everyday life.
I also believe that foreign nationals accused of terrorism should not have the same rights as U.S. citizens because they are not a citizen of the United States. I also believe this because I feel that any person that has done terrorist acts against us from another country should have no rights at all. I believe that they should not be tried in civilian courts because there is no purpose in doing so. No matter what the outcome will always be the same. Our country will not let these men walk free and get away with for what they have done. As a matter of fact they should not be tried even in the United States at all. Cause no matter where they are in the U.S. their outcome will already be known, which is guilty. Holding these trials in the U.S. is a waste of time for our country and it is also delaying the sentences these men deserve.
The provisions of the Patriot Act are needed to protect us. I believe this because our country will be able to keep an eye open for any hints or plans of terrorist acts, and then be able to take any actions necessary. I would rather be warned and prepared ahead of time than to be silently attacked like 9/11. I feel they don’t undermine our freedom because they are not taking away any of our freedoms. All they are just doing is checking out records and other information about people that they can get their hands on even if the Patriot Act wasn’t enabled. Our safety should be our priority and we as U.S. citizens should support that.
I don't think terrorist should be treated like Americans because, they made us suffer by attacking our American civilians on 9/11, which made a lot of people suffer. They shouldn't be tried in civilian courts because they could put a lot of people at risk if a member of their terrorist society could come by and blow him self up in the court killing Americans. I think that terrorists should be held in Guantanamo Bay because if we keep them in the US it may cause more problems by having them in American soil, as if we keep them in Cuba they cant find a way to plan civilian attacks.
The Patriot Act implemented during George W. Bush’s presidency, is a bill that gives our government to bypass some of our civil liberties that are granted to us regarding the American Constitution. There have been accusations around the country that this bill gives the government the right to undermine all of our rights just because. This is not the case. In 2001 our country was struck by terrorism; a new force that has the capabilities of attacking at any time, from anywhere. We need this act because it gives us the possibility of catching these terrorists before they attack. Without the ability to hack phone calls, read emails, etc. it takes away our only chance in defending this country from further attacks.
I feel that, in order to restore and defend freedom in the United States, I would be willing to sacrifice some degree of my individual freedom. However, I only feel that should be taken to a certain extent. When I say this, I mean that the government should have power to tap phone calls or check mail, but that should be it. They shouldn't have too much power. It could violate personal privacy, not saying that wire tapping and mail checking isn't, but still. But, after the events of 9/11 national security and defense against terrorism should really be stepped up. Terrorism is a terrible thing and in a nation of freedom and prosperity needs to be faught against, even if that means giving up some individual liberties. I'm sure there have been some situations of which terrorist acts have been revealed as a result of wire tapping or some other method. It is in the better for the country.
I feel that captives of places such as Guantanamo Bay should not be considered to have the same rights as American citizens. They are NOT American citizens. In the same terms, I don't think they should be tried in civilian courts, either. They should be tried either in their home countries or in some major court, such as the UN. It seems like they're recieving the same rights as US citizens, which is why many people are opposed to the trial of KSM in New York City.
I could also see how the arguments of the US PATRIOT Act go either way. I can see how people support it in order to be protected as a nation, but I can also see how people can feel violated and voided of their privacy. So, I am pretty mutual about the act. I agree that we need to defend against terrorism, but I also agree that that should only be extended to a certain extent.
Imprisoned foreign nationals who are accused of terrorism should not be tried in US civilian courts, or in any US courts at all. I believe that a much more fair and effective system of trying terrorists would be a court system within the UN. The individual war criminal could be represented by members from their nation and the country that was the victim of said war criminal's actions would be able to face them in front of a more impartial jury.
This would be a more effective system because although they may or may not deserve it, the accused would not feel as though they have to face an entire country alone.It would provide a more unbiased jury, this helping to ensure a fair punishment. International criminals accused or convicted of terrorism would be placed into UN custody until a proper sentence could be determined. I believe this may be one of the only logical ways to ensure that terrorists are given a fair trial.
There are elements of the Patriot act that I do understand helps the safety of the United States but there is a line of privacy that may be crossed. I believe intruding on phone calls is absurd. Americans are intitled to feeling safe and I just do not feel right about someone listening in to what I am saying in a PRIVATE phone call. It is hard to dephier what is a necassary precaution and what is crossing the lie. I understand if certain words on an e-mail are bad but ALL e-mails should not be subject to a mandatory check. I don't feel that it is right to give up ALL of our rights. Americans are entitled to their own freedom and thought the Patriot act is important. It should not strip away the rights Americans deserve. I mean if a terrorist that we all know killed so many,why are they aloud to have a fair trial? That doesnt seem very smart to me. Why waste America's time for a trial that is pointless.
I am willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security because it will lower the chances of another terrorist attack on the United States. When there is more security it makes the country safer.
Foreign nationals that are accused of terrorism should not have the same right as an America because of what they have done or what they could be possible planning on doing. They should not be brought into the United States because that is just giving them a chance to get an open shot on us.
The Patriot Act is necessary because it is there to protect our nation and us. If the Government has reason to search people they should be allowed to because it could deal with dangerous harmful things.
If I were asked to give a degree of individual liberty for security, I would succumb to the decision and allow this liberty to be taken away. If a liberty needs to be taken away for the sake of the country, then every one should allow this to happen. We are in a time of conflict, and protection is the most important part of our lives. Liberties are given to us in order to live life to the fullest. Yet you wouldn't be able to do that if our nation is constantly living in fear, wondering if there will be an attack every other day. Protection and defense for security of our country comes first, becuase in the end, it repays you.
Should foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay have the same rights as Americans? Should they be tried in civilian courts? In the US? Explain your answer.
I find it difficult to choose whether or not these foreign nationals who have been accused of terrorism the same equal rights as Americans. In Eugene Robinson’s article “A battlefield in the courtroom” he has one paragraph that I thought hit on a very good point. It states:
“In this context, putting KSM and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but also an opportunity. It's a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel -- that we really do practice what we preach.”
This is a point of view I haven’t really thought about before, but may very well have led to the decision to give KSM a civilian trial. While this may be the better political choice, eventually people are going to have to face the facts. I cannot see anyone accused of terrorism, 9-11 or not, receiving a fair trail with a legitimate jury anywhere in the U.S. Also, my beliefs as an American could not live with even the slightest chance that one of these criminals could get off on a technicality. As for even having the trial in the U.S, I think that since the crime was committed in our country, the accused should be tried in our country. Although the law outside of our country is a bit more lenient, the process by which a jihadist can be tried, prosecuted, and executed is not that complicated a process.
I would be willing to give up my civil liberties for a short amount of time until the threat level was back to normal in the U.S. This way the government would be able to tighten it’s secretly and makes sheer that an event that has happen won’t happen again.
People accused of acts of terrorism should be held in places like Guantanamo Bay because they wouldn’t get the shame rights as people in the U.S. If they don’t get the same rights as the people in the U.S. then they don’t get the write to have a court date in the U.S. The trials should be held by the military court because they are prisoner of war.
The PATRIOT ACT is just a way for the government to gain more power and make them feel like they can do whatever they want.
I believe that giving up a degree of individual liberty is a small price to pay for security. I do not think the provisions of the Patriot Act undermine our freedom. I think all these things are need to protect our country from terriorism. I believe if the goverment feels they have the right to suspect someone of terriorism, it would be foolish not to look futher in the matter. I believe that if the goverment was able to look at things such as phone documents and the books we check out and did not use that advantage, then they would probably be criticized for not full protecting the nation.
Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
I am willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security, but a small degree at that. I agree with Franklin when he said, "They, who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." No amount of safety is worth essential liberties such as those provided to us by the first amendment. I can’t imagine anyone would want to live in a world with telescreens in every room and the fear of thoughtpolice in every heart, regardless of how safe it may be. However, the liberty of privacy isn't as essential, especially when the government, hopefully, doesn't misuse the information and extra power. Personally, I would not mind if the government wanted to see what books I checked out at the library recently or how often I go to a shooting range. Though, I would mind if the government wanted to do something a little more invasive, such as searching my house. It would be fine if they had some reasonable rationale and went through some procedure involving a judge’s authorization to search. Perhaps they could call the authorization a “Search Sanction” or an “Inquiry Warrant”.
I do think that I would give up a degree of individual liberty for national security. I understand that this means less and less privacy for each individual but in times of need, the right procedures need to be done in order to protect our country. I feel as though Americans have the best opportunities to try and do something with their lives and even if some degree of liberty was taken away from us it wouldn’t do too much harm. If we need more national security to make our country safer from terrorism, and in order to have this some of our individual liberties must be taken away, then I say so be it. I have enough confidence in the U.S. government to use these powers correctly.
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security. I agree with the government having access to personal documents because their purpose is to protect not harm us. I feel that if you have nothing to hide why worry about the government looking at your school records, especially if they are only doing it to protect you.
I believe foreign nationals accused or terrorism should not have the same rights as Americans. They are being held in places like Guantanamo Bay for a reason and should not be allowed the same rights as Americans. They should also not be tried in civilian courts, although they should be tried in the US. I feel that they should be tried in the country they are accused of terrorism in.
I find it hard to decide weather foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay should have the same rights as us. In Eugene Robinson’s article he has a good point saying that, " we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel -- that we really do practice what we preach." Since the attck occured in our own country then the terrorists should recieve a fair trial. This will show that we as a country are equal to everyone. When a person commits a murder he or she is then tried. They recieve a fair trail, and so should KSM. It should not matter weather you are a US Citizen or not. Also In Eugene Robinson’s article he say, "But there's one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we're not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven't changed us or our ideals -- and that they never will." This is right we should not be afraid and stand up to the Al Qaeda leaders.
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for the security of our nation. If saving innocent peoples lives means allowing the government to look at what library book I checked out last month, then I have no problem with it. The Provisions of the PATRIOT ACT allow the government to access library records, employment records, telephone records, etc. I feel that the government is only doing this to protect the people of the United States. That is their job, and i feel they are doing a good job of it. Frankly, i have nothing to hide, so the fact that the government can see all of that information does not bother me. By giving up some unimportant rights and liberties, I could possibly be saving the life of a family member, friend, and possibly myself. I think that it is worth giving up some simple liberties to stay safe, save lives, and possibly prevent another 9/11 attack.
I am willing to give up a degree of my individual freedom for security. If it will help the country and prevent future terrorist attacks I believe it is worth it. I believe that if the government has suspension you are a terrorist they should be able to listen to people’s conversations. I think that if you aren’t doing anything wrong it doesn’t matter if they listen or not. It is for the good of the country and security as a whole.
I believe that the people who are accused of being terrorists should not have the same rights as Americans if they are arrested and taken to jail. If you are threatening this country why should have the same rights. I do think they should be tried in United States courts and we can charge them for the crime they committed. I also believe that the patriot act is there to protect us. If you aren’t doing anything wrong then you should have nothing to hide and shouldn’t care what the government is looking for or listening to.
Should foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay have the same rights as Americans? Should they be tried in civilian courts? In the US? Explain your answer.
I believe the terrorist that attack the United States and put citizens in harm’s way should be tried in military court systems. Since terrorism is mostly a military issue, then the military should be in control of their destiny as human beings. There would be controversy because the government would want to take action on this issue since it deals with the government as well.
Terrorist shouldn’t have the rights of us Americans because we fight for our rights and they are just given to them when they come into our country. Since they haven’t fought for their American rights, then I believe they don’t have the same rights as us and should be tried in courts as a terrorists and not as civilians.
I firmly believe that foreign nationalists being accused of terrorism should definatley not have the same rights as American citizens. First of all, they ar FOREIGN nationalists, not citizens, so they should not be given the rights of citizens. Secondly, accussed terrorists are dangerous to have on United States soil. It is their goal to be brought into the limelight and get publicity. Thirdly, no matter what we do to them, they will be happy. If we sentence them to a long-term prison sentence, it will be no different than their long stay at Guantanamo Bay for the past years. If they are sentenced to death, they will be remembered as martyrs by their people. There is no benefit in having them tried in the United States. Even if they were given "American" rights, the American people as a whole would have trouble remaining unbaised in a trail. Everybody remembers how emmotional September 11 was, and I dont think that people would be able to disregard this as a jury member and hold a fair trial.
A Battlefield in the Courtroom says that a civilian trial would show that we aren't afraid of terrorists. I think that this isn't true, and it is a weak arguement for holding a civilian trial. In all honesty, I'm sure that the terrorists do not care if we are afraid of them or not. All they want to do is kill people. Since all they want to do is kill innocent peope, they do not deserve ANY rights, let alone American rights.
I would be willing to give up a degree of civil liberty for security, in order to protect me. Giving up a couple of rights is worth living a safe life. It would be for the better because it would prevent events such as 9/11 from occurring. The PATRIOT act although many may consider it an invasion of privacy, definitely protects us from possible threats. I believe that the government has a right to be able to invade this privacy because if people are putting others at risk then it would help a lot if the government can find a way to prevent it before it becomes something life threatening.
I would be willing to give up an individual liberty in order to gain security. Many people may say that they refuse to give up their rights and freedoms, but I think that the increase of security would be worth it. Life is full of sacrifices and the sacrifice of my individual liberty will be beneficial by prevent terrorism and violent acts. To give up such rights would support the provisions of the Patriot Act: allowing the government to access documents, records and reports to monitor the people. The Patriot Act was very necessary and because of it the country is better protected. Events such as 9/11 can now be prevented and precautions may be made. I think that an individual liberty is worth losing. While we sacrifice one freedom, so many lives are being saved. 9/11 caused deaths, sorrow, chaos and fear; and due to the Patriot Act, the people can avoid more of these things. Overall, I think that the Patriot Act is more in favor of the citizens of American, so I would be willing to give up a freedom if it would better those around me.
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for national sercurity. Allowing the goverment to see certain things would help keep us safe. I would rather keep more people safe then have them die in something so tragic like 9/11. I do feel like certain things can be checked such as: phone records and library records. I feel that the governemnt should have acess to these records so that they know what people are looking or even planning. Though the PATRIOT ACT does a good job of doing these things, I do believe that we should be entiled to have a phone call without having someone hearing in. I do believe that people accused of terrorsim should be tried in civilian courts because it shows that we are preaching what we are all about, and each should have their right to speak, but infront of a court that is stricter about the topic.
Foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay should definitely not have the same rights as Americans. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man who designed the 9/11 attack, is a perfect example. How could we allow such a criminal the right to a free trial? KSM clearly attacked the United States and killed the lives of many innocent citizens. Even if it was another country, what he did was completely unjust and had no morals. Even if he was given the trial, he wouldn't even win his defense so there would be no point to the trial, and we shouldn't even want to give a terrorist even the slightest possibility of walking free.
Although I don't believe there terrorists should have the right to a trial, they should not be tried in civiliam courts rather than military tribunals. Civilian courts are not secure as military tribunals and important information could be leaked out to allied terrorists. Furthermore, an attack on defenseless citizens is far more of a war crime than on a U.S. vessel. We should try to make these trials as unfair as possible because what they did definitely more unfair and no other country can dispute that.
These terrorists should be tried in countries depending on where they terrorized people if they were to be tried. KSM was responsible for the 9/11 attack and he should be tried in no country other than the U.S. He should not be tried in his own country because that would give him a very easy chance of walking free since many of his natives probably look to him as a hero.
Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
I would be willing give up a degree of individual liberty for security. Giving up a degree of individual liberty is a big deal but what the country and Americans are recieving in return makes the sacrifice worth it. It'll reduce the risk of any threats on the country such as terrorist activities. It'll also reduce any fear or concerns the people of the United States may have by knowing that the environment they are living in is a much safer place.
I am more than willing to give up some civil liberties in order to move toward winning the war on terror. The only people who should really have any concerns over the matter are the people who have something to hide. In my opinion if people aren't willing to give up some personal privacy, which in the cases of the vast majority of the American population won't even be affected, then they have no concern for the big picture and the greater good of our struggling nation. I personally don't care at all if the government can see what books I take out of the library or hear me talking on the phone making plans to go to the movies this weekend. My personal information is no interest to the government because I am a law-abiding citizen. The people skeptical of these powers of the government are the ones the government should be skeptical of.
I would not be willing to give up a degree of my individual liberty. I feel this way because the founding fathers built this country on the ideas of freedom and liberty and so if some of the brightest minds in history create a plan to run a country with these ideas then than today we should not have trouble living with the same amount of security today. Obviously with the new threat of terrorism we do need to enhance security but we need to look at where security is needed to be increased, and as the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 showed us that the threat is mainly external. Whether it’s in the Middle East with Al-Qaeda, or south of our borders with the swine flu outbreak, or in Asia with the SARS outbreak in the past, anywhere in the world there can be threats and I believe we should trust the security we can control inside the country more and focus on keeping what comes into the country from harming us. I believe if something does happen like the attack on the World Trade Centers the attackers should be charged in the state in which their actions occurred under those laws. This seems to be the only fare way to asses a situation like this because it removes any possibilities of double standards or exceptions. In the case of the 9/11 bombings the actions occurred in the US and so the people responsible should be tried in the US although they are not US citizens so they do not have the right to be tried in civilian courts. In this case I believe the US Army should be implemented and take control of how the case will be handled (or conduct a military tribunal). The provisions of the PATRIOT ACT were necessary at the time (2001) to search for and find any terrorist where abouts in the following days and even months following the events of 9/11. But it is not needed for an extended period of time and in doing so undermines our freedom. The problem itself did not originate in our country nor was it executed by members our country either, so we should not be looking inward at ourselves for blame, but we should be searching outward to find those who we know held part in the horrific events on that day.
The idea of trading civil liberties for national defense has been around for hundreds of years. One of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, said, “Anyone who would trade liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither.” National security is definitely a matter of great importance, it is important to confront our enemies. However, when we are fighting we must remember what we are fighting for. If we give up what makes us Americans in order to preserve America we will lose. I think the reason that America has kept its civil liberties is because, yes in the past they have been compromised for national security, but the public has remained aware and always demanded that the restrictions be taken away. The idea of checks and balances is what will allow for America to employ these less than popular tactics when needed, but stop one person from gaining to much power. As long as the American public remains aware of the violations of civil liberties and speaks out against them we will be fine.
Should foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay have the same rights as Americans? Should they be tried in civilian courts? In the US? Explain your answer.
I do not think that foreign nationals accused of terrorism should have any rights of the Americans. I believe they should be held in Guantanamo Bay. These terrorists have no heart, no soul, and should not be treated in any way remotely close to having the rights of a U.S. Citizen. By giving the terrorists the same rights as Americans is simply hypocritical. These men are killing our citizens and our troops. And the troops are who fought for these rights and freedoms in the first place. I believe these terrorist should be treated the worst out of anyone because they are bloodthirsty killers and they don’t care about war crimes and rules. They have held many of our men captive and killed them, most of which are innocent journalists too. We are dealing with people who are the worst of the worst and they deserve to be treated that way.
I don’t believe they should be treated in civilian courts for the same reason as above. They should not get a right to a fair trial. The terrorists getting a right to a fair trial is just like slapping the men and women who have fought and died for those rights in the face by giving some of the most evil men that same right. This civilian trial also drags out the process for the terrorists. They enjoy the chance to “proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.” These terrorists should be tried in a military tribunal because it will take far less time to convict and execute men such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man who was the mastermind of 9/11.
I feel that under the situation our country is in with the threat of another terrorist attack everyday, that it is a safe and smart decision to let the government carry out whatever actions are needed to protect the country. Even if these action interfere with some of a individual liberties. Some of the methods that national security is using that effects these liberties is "random" wire tapping, and researching a persons life as far obtaining lists of library book that have been taking out and looking up schooling information. I believe that if only one terrorist is captured by using these methods then it would have been ok. However I do worry about if after the terror situation is handled will the liberties be restored to citizens.
After a suspected terrorist is captured even if there a citizen of another country, i believe they deserve the right to some sort of fair trial. The problem with this is how do you try a case such as these. Also where would be a safe fair place to hold the trials. In america it would be impossible to find an unbiased jury. In there homeland it would be the same scenario. Possible Guantanamo Bay would be the best place to try the men but a new way must be invented to help try them. I believe that the convicted terrorist should stay in Guantanamo bay because although it has its flause it is the safest place for them.
We unfortunately be branded as the "post 9/11 era" due to the horrific attacks that took place in 2001. Personally, I am completely willing to give up a degree of my freedom as an individual to help the nation as a whole. I personally feel that I have nothing to hide and that I will only feel more secure knowing the government is deeply involved in stopping another attack on the United States.
In terms of foreign criminals, I feel that they should be tried in a military court for their criminal actions, and absolutely should not have the same rights as we do. WE are citizens, and THEY are not. Why should they have equal rights. These anti-american radicals have no right to be issued the same rights as we do. They have no right to be tried in any civilian court of any nation. Its just not right. I also feel that PATRIOT Act does not undermine our freedom, but actually secures it even more. I feel more safe as a US citizen knowing that my government is doing all it can to prevent another attack of the united states. The Patriot Act is more than just security, its piece of mind, and I feel that such piece of mind is worth mild sacrifice.
I think it’s alright for the government to have easier access to people’s files if they do suspect terrorist activity. As long as you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t really be concerned with what the government may be looking at. If you aren’t involved with terrorist organizations then the government won’t even be looking at any of your personal information anyway. It’s alright give up a few of your liberties for security.
I believe it is ok for suspected terrorists to be held at Guantanamo Bay because they are prisoners of war. They are not U.S. citizen so they shouldn’t be treated like them. People work hard in America in order to have the rights we have, the people arrested by the government shouldn’t get to experience our good fortune. The suspected terrorist should have to stay imprisoned for as long as it takes to determine what should be done with them. If we send them back to their country they could just be let go and start doing the same illegal activity. We must do everything in our power to ensure the safety of the American people.
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security. If giving up some of my liberty meant that the government would be able to protect us from terrorist acts then I would be fine with it. THe patriot acts lets them see you library books, school records, and phone records. IF this helps them suspect somebody of terrorism I am all for giving up liberties. People that are not good Americans and not hiding anything should agree to this because they cant find anything if nothings there, right?
Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
For the sake of keeping the citizens of the USA safe, I do believe that giving up individual liberty for security is important. It's only a few more minutes of waiting, and people should start learning patience again. Why would you jeopardize that chance of killing millions of people just because you are to impatient to deal with a few more minutes of waiting. There can be a degree though on how much you lose to security. The ability to use that is very powerful and can be easily misused. So we'd have to be careful but if done properly I think that it is an excellent idea.
In terms of whether or not I would be willing to give up some individual rights for security of this country, I say that I am absolutly for it. If giving up a few rights will help insure protection for the people of this country, and the country as a whole, then I don't have a problem with making some sacrifices. Fue to the Patriot Act, the government is able to access any individuals records, and in doing so, we can discover if someone is part of a terrorist group against the US.
I believe that the Government has the right to do whatever they have to with the records, as long as it means enforcing security for the people in the US. By doing this, we can prevent another major attack against the US I think it is reasonable to say that we have to give a little to recieve some in return. This way, we will ensure protection and security in the country. Lastly, I feel that most people who haven't committed crimes would see eye to eye with me, and that only those who have criminal records, would have an issue with the government accessing all of their records. If it meant protecting and securing myself in the US, I would easily vote to give up a few of my individual liberties to ensure that.
I would be willing to give up a degree of my individual liberty for security. If giving up some of my freedom can keep me safer I would rather be safe. In discussing this I think about the Christmas day bomber, and how they want to put in the full body scanners. Though it is taking away some freedom, I would rather be completely scanned than die. If taking away some of my freedoms is going to keep me alive, I do not see how I could argue against it.
I also think that the provisions of the Patriot Act protect us, I do not feel like they undermine our freedom. Again I know I am not one of the bad people, so I do not see why it should matter if they are wire taping or what not. If they do this and it can help me be safe and secure, and allow me to live the life I do lead, again I say why not. I would rather have them track everything everyone does so they can catch the one person, than have them stop tracking everyone and have another situation like 9/11 happen. I do not think that they are undermining our freedom. I think they take the necessary steps to keep us safe and I do not see any problem with that.
Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
Are you willing to risk your life and the lives of other citizens because of small petty reasons? Is being too self conscious to be checked for explosives or other weapons in a device that may or may not be revealing responsible? Anyone who doesn't see the necessity of this security check is irresponsible and has confused priorities.
Should foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay have the same rights as Americans? Should they be tried in civilian courts? In the US? Explain your answer.
If terrorists wish to cause harm to innocent people and don’t consider our rights why should we even consider their rights? Was it fair for the accused to be water boarded at Guantanamo Bay? Are you kidding? Was it fair for the thousands of people who died on 9/11? If water boarding is what it takes to obtain information that will save innocent’s lives, I would willingly do the water boarding myself. We all know that if one of us were captured by Al-Qaeda we’d be subjected to a lot worse than the so called “torture” going on at Guantanamo Bay.
If giving up my individual liberty meant a safer country and people then of course i believe that it is important and necessary. This act really isn't too big of a crisis when you think abou it. many bombings in the U.S could have been prevented if this act was in effect then. I believe this is definitely useful in prevention of terroism, and should be put into use as soon as possible. Also this will only take a few extra minutes out of your time, so its not a time consuming problem. This is something i think that should of been used a long time ago when the attacks started to progress more and more often. I think we are on the right track to a safer and better country.
Erica Meister-
I am willing to give up a certain degree of individual liberty for security. If a certain degree of individual liberty needs to be taken away for the sake of our country’s security then I’m all for it. We should all be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for us to live in a secure country especially due to different problems that have happened in the past.
I believe that the provisions of the Patriot Act are needed to protect us. If someone is suspected of terrorism then the government has a right to investigate a suspect. Even though the Patriot Act lets the government access any individual’s records such as a book checked from the library, I think the Patriot Act is a way for the government to investigate someone if they’re suspected of terrorism or some sort of wrong activity that is harmful to the country, our government, or is against the law. With the Patriot Act, the country has more protection and security. It helps protect our country more from harmful threats and tragedy. Since 9/11, security measures have gone increasingly up. Our country wants us to be protected from harmful antics. Even if there is a somewhat invasion of privacy, I think that the Patriot Act helps protect our country from further threats.
I believe that foreign nationals accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay should not have the same rights as Americans. First of all, they put themselves into the situation that helped them become accused of terrorism and held in places like Guantanamo Bay. They are not citizens of the U.S. They should not be given the rights that American citizens have. They should not be tried in civilian courts or in the US because if they are accused of terrorism then it could be dangerous for our country if they are actually guilty of terrorism. They should have a trial somewhere else such as at Guantanamo Bay or a military-type base. They should have a right to a trial just not in the US. We should try to protect our country as much as possible from any type of threat.
I do believe that giving up your individual liberty is important for the sake of the safety of Americans. You don't have to wait all that long to go though the body scanner, and it prevents people like the man from the Christmas day attempt explosion from getting on planes. We need to make sure we don't give up on this idea, even if people cant stand waiting for only a few minuets extra. If we give up on these body scanners it will allow the bad guys to do what they want. So in the end i think that the body scanner's would be a great idea.
I feel that I would be willing to give up some individual liberties in order to ensure the safety of our country. Personally I do not feel that it is that big of a deal if the government is listening in on my phone calls. I consider myself to be an upstanding citizen of the United States and I have nothing to hide. If the government listens in to my conversations with my friends they would only find out pointless information that I would not really care if they knew. I would be willing for them to screen my calls if it means that there is a possibility that they could find out information that could protect the citizens of the United States. I think that this is something that ever American should be okay with. In order for our government to provide us with the maximum amount of freedom that the constitution ensures us, they need to be able to protect our well being. This is the whole purpose of the Patriot Act. It allows the government to go to certain measures in order to ensure our freedom. While some people may find this unconstitutional, I think that we need to have fait in our government and believe that what they are doing is actually in our best interest.
I am most definitely willing give up some of my liberties for the sake of my security and the country's safety. My reasoning is that having security is what allows us citizens to retain our liberties. Our liberties were first secured after we had fought against the British government and from then on, we've been fiercely protective of our country and we have guarded it to prevent another country's invasion. If a country was able to invade our own country because we refused to surrender some of our liberties, all of our liberties would be forgone. It's best to settle with what is necessary rather than fight for liberties that we could live without.
In addition, what individual liberty is more important than the whole country's security? Many people quip that public records (library, school) should not end up in the hands of government. If people are saying this and are willing to go to extreme measures to prevent their public records from being seen, then the government should be reasonably suspicious. Also, I feel the same about phone conversations? What could be that private? Those people have something to hide.
To take away any of my rights, the government would need to give me a reason why, explain what will be done, and what I will be left with. Right now, that's what they're doing. And after 9/11, I would do anything to help our country become secure again.
I am willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security. I think that we should be able to know that we are completely safe at all times in this country. If we have to give up a little in the process to do so then it is untimely worth it. If you have nothing to hide than the security measures that they are establishing should not in any way negatively affect you or your life.
Anyone that is accused of terrorism and held in Guantanamo Bay should not have the same rights as American citizens because they put the whole population at risk and technically are not “American Citizens.” A person who is being convicted of terrorism should not be tried as a civilian but rather as someone who has committed a war crime.
The patriot act needs to make sure that it has a complete set of rules and regulations set in place, along with a list of boundaries that cannot be crossed. This would allow everyone to know what exactly is considered legal and what they can and cannot do.
I do not believe that americans should be forced to give up theit civil liberties for the purpose of "security". Americans have a right to privacy, and what they do and do not choose to share is their business. More privacy does not necessarily mean less security. The government should keep an eye on suspicious activity. Keyword, suspicious. The technology is out there so that if someone is researching dangerous things on the internet, a red flag shows up and that person can be watched a little more closely. For the government to have access to almost anything is obsene. To me, what the government can do now would be like if someone came into your house and started searching drawers and cabinets, claiming that it is "for your safety". Most people generally know what is safe and what isn't. It is not something that requires government regulation to understand. The patriot act gives the government way too much control over private information. The government should only have the right to intervene if their is an actual threat to this country's citizens. Otherwise the provisions are just intrusive and unnecessary. Adjustments need to be made because the government does not need access to all the information that is at their disposal.
Giving up my individual liberty and freedom for security I think would be the best thing to do during this time or period. If giving up my rights make me and my country safer I think that I am willing to take the chance. Our country would be much safer and would be safer from terrorism attacks.
The Patriot Act provisions, I think, do not undermine our freedom but it makes us more secure. Even though it allows the departments to do phone checking, library records checking, etc, if you think that you have nothing to hide and that you have done nothing wrong then why be so scared. When your doing the right thing there should be not doubt about it.
When looking at the point that if terrorists should have the same rights as us, I think no. This is because first of all they are harming our country. Then why should they be given equal rights? A citizen of a country, is a person who will do anything for their country, even sacrificing their life. Citizens would not harm their own country. Being a citizen of the U.S., I have that feeling in my heart and I am sure that every American has the same feeling. So then why give the terrorists equal rights, while they are destroying our country.
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for our nation’s security. If it is going to help prevent terrorist attacks, I think it is worth it because the government isn’t using the power for unnecessary reasons. It is for the benefit and security our nation.
I think the provisions of the PATRIOT Act are needed to protect us. Some of these provisions include searching of public records such as phone records, library records, and school records, and creating special courts for warrants to search. If the US government suspects someone as a danger to the nation or as a terrorist in our country, I would want these things searched so the government can make sure and figure out if they are. Even though people may view the PATRIOT Act provisions as undermining to our freedom, I believe it is necessary in order to protect the nation. If people have nothing to hide then they shouldn't worry about what the government does in order to protect the nation. The people that care are either very greedy or caught up in the rights they have or are hiding something that could make them a threat
I would be willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for safety. If by giving up some of your individual liberty for a safer country that would help prevent terrorist attacks. Ever since 9/11 the U.S. government has been trying to make this country safer and safer, and I am willing to do whatever it takes to make sure our country is safe. As for the provisions of the Patriot Act, I think they are trying to help us and not invade on our privacy. If the government looks back at your call records, places you have been on the internet, they aren’t doing it to try to spy on you, they are trying to enforce safety. I think having a safe country is the most important thing to have, and giving up a degree of individual safety is a price I am willing to pay.
I would be willing to give up a degree of my individual liberty if it would mean security from any terrorist attacks. If doing this would help protect the country more, I don’t see why a person wouldn’t. I am willing to take the chance to give up my civil liberty in order to make the country safer from any possible threats. I think the provisions of the PATRIOT ACT are made to help us. Some people may see it as a violation of privacy, but the government didn’t make these provisions to spy on people. They made them to keep the country safer and to look for any possible threats based on public records such as phone records, library records, and school records. If these provisions are needed to keep us safe, I have no problem with them.
Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
Yes, I am willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security. After the 9/11 attacks our nation realized that security has to be enforced more. With that said why not get a full body scan for more protection. This will allow for airports to catch potential terrorists. This ensures our country safety and this idea should be enforced.
I think I would be willing to give up individual liberties for my security along with my family and friends. As long as you have nothing to hide, I think that we should have the right to know that we are completely safe in this country. If someone is accused of terroism and are being detained in Guantanamo Bay they should have equal rights as American citizens.
I think that the patriot act is hear to ensure our safety as a nation. If our government suspected a terrorist threat in our country, I think I would want them to be allowed to check it out just incase. I feel that the patriot act is solid way to keep safety throughout the U.S.
I wouldn't have any problem giving up some civil liberties if it ensured my safety. Especially since there have still been recent attempted terrorist attacks. You can never be sure when someone with a bomb is going to pop up these days.
If giving up a few rights protects the well being of our country, I'm all for it. The Provisions of the Patriot Act allow the Government access to all kinds of documents. Such as phone records, library records, and school records. If someone is a suspect of terrorism, I believe the Government has every right to these records. The Patriot Act was only made for the protection of our country and for the prevention of another attack like 9/11. Although it may violate some rights or civil liberties, I do think the Patriot Act is necessary. If it meant that our country will be more safe and secure, I would be willing to sacrifice those rights. I think it is completely necessary to take every precaution possible in protecting the well being of the United States. If you have nothing to hide, then there shouldn't be any objection to the Government having access to these records.
I am willing to give up some of my individual liberties if it means keeping this country and its people safe. I do not believe that the government has a right to take a complete history of everybody's cookies and find out everything about anybody. I do believe that they should be able to do this with anybody that is very suspicioius or already known to be threatning. This will help prevent terrorists from terrorizing this nation. I know that this idea still has many flaws. How can we tell who we should background check? How much can we check each suspect? But we cannot let people bomb crowded areas and hurt and kill hundreds of people. This needs to stop now, and if to get this to stop is by invading my privacy a little bit, that is perfectly fine with me. I'd rather be alive and have people look at the web sites I have visited than be a victim of the terrorists.
I do believe that foreign nations accused of terrorism should have the same rights as Americans. They are willing to blow up buildings and kill millions of innoscent lives. So, why should they have the same rights as Americans. The reason to that is because some Americans are just as bad, if not worse then those terrorists. All the legal born citizens of the U.S. are rapists, murderers, kidnappers, ect. If they had the right mind set, they could easily blow up anything they want to. We should treat the terroists in the same way we treat all the other "bad" people that are in the U.S. It doesn't matter who they are, if they commit a horrible crime, they should be punished and have the same rights as anyone else does.
I believe that the provisions to the PATRIOT ACT are here to protect us. If someone is planning to commit a crime I believe that people should be able to search any records you may have. When people are against this, and are worried about their privacy, they have nothing to worry about. The police don't care about your personal life, all they care about is the safety of others. Also, the full body scans in all airports is a great idea. I know I wouldn't want to be up in a plane with a bomb on board. I want them to do whatever they can to keep me safe and alive. By having a full body scan, I will feel just that much safer.
I am willing to give a certain degree of my personal liberty for security. Many people have trouble giving up their liberties for security. I believe it makes the best sense to give up a little something. When one dies, there are no more liberties to live for. I would rather be alive and have most of my rights than have a little more rights and possibly die from a terrorist attack.
I think we should give up some of our civil liberties to ensure more safty for our country. Yes the government would be using alot of there power but it is for the good and will help avoid another attack like 911. I think that as long as our everyday lives aren't immensly effected I see no reason for us not to want to have our government help us become more safe. The Provisions of the Patriot Act make it so the government can look up past phone, library and school records. If their is some suspicion on somebody that may be a threat to this country they should have every right to be able to look up as much as they can on that persons past. This will help with the threats on us and should make it so we do not have to worry and we can be ensured that we are protected.
I would be willing to give up some of my individual liberties in order to maintain a safer country. I don’t think that this would be taking away our freedom, but merely a more assured way of securing the overall freedom of our nation.
The people convicted of terrorism should not be tried in the United States- or at all. I don’t think they deserve to have to same rights as American citizens, because their goals were to inflict harm on the U.S. I think they should just get the death penalty because it would eliminate the chance of possible terrorists being set free. If they were accused in the first place, the evidence against them must have been strong enough, so I don’t think a trial is necessary. Our goal should be to terminate any person who has the intent of harming our country, not to give them each an equal chance at freedom.
I completely understand the provisions of the Patriot Act. I do think they could be interpreted as intrusive but I don’t think it really crosses the line of citizen’s rights being violated. I just think the precaution is necessary to protect our nation.
I would be willing to give up some liberty in exchange for higher security. I will have no freedom if I am not safe, so it seems like a pretty fair tradeoff. Also, one must realize that the liberties we are giving up are not part of our essential rights. They are simply security measures such as walking through a body scanner.
The same goes for the Patriot Act. The provisions of the act do not undermine freedom, they just give the government the ability to tap into more private sectors of society, where the terrorists try to hide. Increased national security is definitely worth having the government tap your phone or screen your emails (especially since you would never know anyways). As far as I am concerned, any non-intrusive step toward ensuring the safety of American citizens seems worthwhile.
Are you willing to give up a degree of individual liberty for security? Why, Why Not?
I would be completely willing to give up a small degree of individual liberty for security. Things such as full body scanners placed in air ports are no bothersome to me. While some may consider it an intrusion of privacy, with the global terror situation at the heightened state that it is, things such as that should be sacrificed in order to protect all passengers. The people who complain about the full body scans need to come up with a viable alternative, because without these types of measures another attack is plausible. Full body scanners are the best way to scan everyone without performing a strip search on everyone, or by screening certain passengers. While I would not appreciate the government fully encroaching on my personal privacy, I would be willing to allow some lines to be crossed in order to preserve the well being of my fellow countrymen. Also, people must be willing to accept certain measures, it's not like they're cavity searching every passenger entering a plane, just looking at an image on a screen, which they are professionally trained to do, it's not like they are abusing the privilege of using such equipment. While I wouldn't want the government to be surveilling my every action, such as using the bathroom (or at least telling me that they are, the less I know the better for that matter), quick things like walking through a scanner are perfectly manageable.
I would definitely give a degree of individual liberty for security. If giving that up will help prevent more terrorist attacks and provide us better security than I'm all for it. No individuals liberty is more important than the security of the country as a whole. People are skeptical about the full body scanners because they think that they are an invasion of privacy but with all the terrorist attacks and the recent attempts i feel that a simple invasion of ones privacy for an entire countries safety is a small price to pay. Everyone looks the same underneath it all, what do we have to hide?
In my opinion I do NOT believe that terrorists should be treated like a civil Americans. They are out to hurt America and add not one positive impact on our country.
I also do not believe that the Patriot Act goes against our freedom at all! Our goverment are taking actions to protect Americans in every way, but at the same time still grant us our freedom!
I would sacrifice a few of my civil liberties to better protect the citizens of this country. As long as the changes made in the law would not make a significant change to my daily life, I would not object. If a law abiding citizen is not going to be affected by this law, then people should not be making a scene about it. The way I see it, some of those who are strongly opposed to a few civil liberties that have been denied have something they fear would get them in trouble. I feel like it is a small price to pay for greater security. Would you rather have a life with some liberties, or no life at all?
That's it! No mas! Finished for the semester.
I believe that foreign nationals should not receive the same rights as US citizens. Also, i believe that shouldn't be tried as US citizens, because they would have the right to a trial. Usually, these foreign nationals are brought for interrogation in other countries before being brought to Guantanamo Bay. This would not be allowed if they were to be tried as US citizens. Also, with the jury having information about that specific person, it would most likely lead to a biased decision.
I am willing to give up a degree of individual liberty in order to ensure security. I would rather give up individual liberties rather than have a sense of insecurity in this country. I feel that trails for terrorist suspects should not be held in the United States but should not be as confined and brutal as they are today as many suspects are innocent people. However, I don't feel that these suspects should have the same rights as Americans, as some of them may be guilty.
i think people should do whaever they can to keep them and their country safe.I believe the gov ernment should not be able to look at th historyof everything you have done. that is a brech of privacy unless there is reasonable suspision. I also this is accceptable for people who have bee know for wrong doing. Many of the flaws in this should be worked out before they use the idea. but i believe this will help prevent terrorist attempts in our nation.
I’m not sure I like that the government is able to tap into my phone and email, but I suppose it is necessary for the assurance of freedom. If the government has to tap phone lines in order to protect our country from terrorists, then so be it. It is when they abuse this privilege that it is not alright. If they start tracking and profiling American citizens (which I’m sure they have), that is when I am a little bit on edge. But, with cyberspace being so large and having so many loopholes, I’m not sure there is much we can do to protect ourselves from their intrusion.
Post a Comment