the the intention of an investigation is to find information on terrorists and instead information is gathered about maybe on a drug cartel Is the purpose of the Act being fulfilled? No, it is being used for an unrelated issue.Yes, there is a goal being accomplished, but it is not what the Act was intended for.
The patriot act is the government's way of enforcing a form of dictatorship. They say this act is only being used for terrorists to prevent attacks similar to 9/11. The government is using this act for other purposes such as spying on innocent Americans. What happen to our civil liberties? Why are they being taking away because of this mediocre act?
Yes, I believe we need to keep our country safe but do not I think this is the right answer. Our rights to privacy should not be taking away because the government feels threatened by the advanced ways of terrorists. For the government to be able to check up on you because they feel as though you "could" be a potential threat is absolutely insane. I will not stand for this. Many of my ancestors came to America for freedom. Now years later America is becoming the bad place they had to get out of. The government is becoming an absolute power right under our nose and we're just watching it unfold in front of us.
Before you know it the government will call all its citizens "prospective terrorists" to gain access to their privacy. Then a simple two way intimate call with your husband will than be a three way with a government official who gets lonely at night. Technology will truly be the death of us Americans. We let advanced scientific findings destroy our lives. We will soon turn into savages because of the government's paranoid ways. Before America turns from the land of free to land of dictatorship we need to get rid of the patriotic act.
After researching different peoples opinions on the patriot act and looking up about the effects that is has had on people I have formed my own opinion on the subject. I have not herd that many stories about injustices being committed under the patriot act, there are only a few I have read and in those cases the suspect is not specified as being guilty or innocent, these supposedly innocent suspects who were apparently unfairly arrested under the patriot act may very well be guilty. Mostly what I have read are objections to specific sections of the patriot act, such as section 215 which covers the governments right to seize peoples library records, which many people are saying could be misused. a lot of the complaints are of possible problems that could occur from the patriot act, not actual events. I am in complete agreeance with people who say that the patriot act can be harmful, However I believe that the government will do whatever they have to in order to protect the country and meet their goals, they don't need the patriot act to do things, they need it to do things in public and have people agree with it. I have not experienced any injustices due to the patriot act and I am not concerned about it. The government will do what they want regardless of the patriot act. In summation I think that unless the patriot act is shown to have a significant impact on fighting terrorism, it should be reviewed for being useless.
they picture was being weird, but here's the link for the picture:
In the first article "theres still a need, Mr Posner writes that certain aspects of the patriot act are long over due however, I felt as though his paper wasn't that opinionated because although he talked about how the act was making up for lost time and certain aspects of it were needed to increase national security and how the decisions made about the act were justified, he barely goes into detail about the act. To a reader who didn't know what the act was, his article would be a dull, under opinionated read. In my opinion he should've went into more detail about the new measures of security that the act entailed and about the difference between the government seeping too far into peoples personal rights and being justified enough by the strengthening need for more intense national security. In my opinion, i think that we do need the patriot act but not to the extent that they show in the movie enemy of state. I think that if people are under suspicion and the government has reasonable belief to think they are a threat to national security, they should be put under some surveillance but at the same time, i wouldn't want the government taping into my phone conversations if they misinterpreted something that i said or did.
As i read the articles they raise important things such as, how easy it was for the terrorism to do their attack. I Agree we still do need it but to a certain limit though. As citizen we do not want to be always ruled over rules but then again its for the best interest of our safeness.
Observing the film about the deaf couple was different. The absence of silence added more dramatic effect to what was going on between the two. After the argument the couple had, the guy storms out. The female starts writing a journal on the computer about the things that are driving this couple to breaking up. The entire time the tv is on tuned into the news, and the news is reporting what is happening to the Twin Towers (World Trade Center). Because of the fact the female was deaf, she had no idea what was going on until the room around her starts shaking, then her boyfriend shows up covered in ash. When the female opened the door, and I saw her boyfriend standing there, I was amazed. Knowing what was going on in New York that day, would have lead me to think the police was showing up at the door to report the boyfriend's death. The film took a turn, and fooled me. All of the films were mind blowing, but those two were the ones that stuck with me the most. If I was the age I am now at the time, I would love to know how everything would have a different affect on me.
Many people feel uncomfortable knowing that the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on people. That is understandable, but the average American should not be worried whether or not they are being spied on (unless they are doing something they shouldn’t). They need to understand that the only people that the government will keep under surveillance are the people who are guilty of suspicious terrorist activity, this includes people traveling in and out of the country. And if people are still not convinced, according to the NYTimes article, A Vital Weapon, agents cannot “eavesdrop” or spy on a person unless they prove to a judge that the suspect is a terrorist.
While I agree with some of the articles against the Patriot Act, I believe that the it should remain a law. Like many laws, this one isn’t perfect, no one is going to get exactly what they want. I can get past the whole “invasion of privacy” thing if it means I can live life without another terrorist attack. The Patriot Act has helped the US in the past and it is going to help us in the future.