Blog Feed

Create a Post

Enemy of the State Response

Posted by Manna-Symone Middlebrooks on
In this film, the government was portrayed as a hasty and invasive body. The film begins with the murder of a congressman who, for a valid reason, refuses to side with the passing of a bill that will allow for more the surveillance of American citizens. The murder is staged to look like a suicide and this becomes the first level of secrecy in the movie. The main character, Bobby, unknowingly gets a hold of the video recording of the murder and is then hunted throughout the rest of the movie for information that he does not even discover until nearly the end of the movie. 

Personally, I believe that the government should be able to have access to our private information when there is a just reason for doing so. In the film there was no threat to national security or crime committed that warranted the invasion of Bobby's privacy. The scene where Bobby's house was bugged with wires, but is left looking like a robbery best captures the image of a direct invasion of privacy.  The man can't even go into his own house without having his every move monitored. At what point is the line drawn and the powers of the government and NSA limited? However, I did find it interesting when Bobby and Lyle were able to bug  the hotel room of another government official using the same technology as the NSA. When  Reynolds explains to the NSA team that their mission was only a practice added to the layers of lies and secrecy in the movie. The entire mission Jack Black's character and the rest of the tech people are under the impression that this is just routine, brings into question how much the NSA and government can manipulate their own staff, and citizens. 

U.S.A P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act Response

Posted by Manna-Symone Middlebrooks on
 After completing the reading, I believe that there is still a need for the U.S.A P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act to still exist but the need is not as great as it was after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There was little debate about the need for such and act however, the rapid development and little amendment limit the need for the Act in its current form. 

With developments in communication  technology it is becoming more difficult to track down certain individuals. The threat of terror will always exist and in order to keep Americans safe it may become necessary to investigate  "law abiding" citizens. However, this should not occur without having to first go through a judge to do so. If a judge is not reviewing the orders for the search then they can be considered as unjust and/or unconstitutional. 

Nevertheless, instances will occur where the need to collect information can not wait for the approval of a judge and must be rushed. In these instances review by a judge is still necessary during the investigation. Take for example this scenario, 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. 

MPyfrom Blog Post 2- Room For Debate

Posted by Marina Pyfrom in American Government - Herman on

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. 

RoomForDebate,PatriotAct,Activity 1

Posted by William Potts in American Government - Herman on

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.    

SUMMARY OF PATRIOT ACT UNIT

Posted by Samantha Zeisloft in American Government - Herman on

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. 

Patriot Act

Posted by Alysha Ortiz in American Government - Herman on
After all of the discussion if we still need the Patriot Act a handful of people conclude that we still need it. The reason why is because of the 9/11 attack due to it it open people eyes on how weak our security is for the citizen. 
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. 

September 11 Shorts

Posted by Khalil Clark in Digital Video -Senior - Herman on
After watching the different short films from class, I mixed with different emotions. In the film with the little kids who seemed so innocent in the beginning, this has a reoccurring theme of death. The kids seemed comfortable with the fact that people die extremely often where they live. Most kids around the age of the children in the film have a hard time understanding death at such a young age. The teacher in the film wanted the students to understand something larger than just death. When the attacks on the US happened September 11, 2001, those kids obviously had no idea what was going on. It took some time to get them to understand what had happened. I was 6 years old in the first grade, and had no idea why I was being sent home early.

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.

The Act

Posted by Joseph Wood on
People say that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.  But who is to say that with out the Patriot Act there would even be a constitution at all.  Who's to say that with out this act more attacks like 9/11 wouldn't happen.  WIth this act it is all most certien that something like 9/11 won't happen again.  There have been a little over 30 terriost attacks stopped before they could be put into place because of this act. And if people don't attack and do shady stuff then they shouldn't have to wary about there privacy being messed with. IF you are a regular american who lives there life regular there is no reason to warry. Its the ones that are up to something that have to wary and we should want it like that.  But the ones who stay out of trouble won't have to worry about trouble finding them if they do what they are supposed to

Do We Still Need the PATRIOT Act?

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

RoomForDebate: PatriotAct- Activity1

Posted by Matthew Walker in American Government - Herman on
     The Patriot act is something that when used correctly can please everyone. The act allows the government to monitor potential terrorists by monitoring their personal records; such as Phone records, Computer records, Credit history and Banking History. It also allows the government to perform "sneak and peeks" which allows them to secretly search a potential terrorists home. To stop terrorists we do still need the patriot act.

      One reason we need the Patriot act is for the fact that since it was enforced there have been no major terrorism attacks such as 9/11. This is a great thing because I do not believe that this country can handle another attack like that. Now while I do believe that we still do need the patriot act I do feel that in the Past the government has been abusing the law.

      Between the years 2003 and 2006 the FBI issued 192,499 NSL's (allows them to access personal records) that led to only one terrorist attack. This is just showing how the government can abuse power. So for this act to be continued their needs to be restrictions on when the government does this.

      Another example on why the government needs restrictions is because in the year 2010 there were 3,970 sneak and peaks 76% of which were drug related 24% other and less than 1% were terrorist related. This shows that the government can bend the act to satisfy what they need to arrest other criminals. So in order for the act to continue there also needs to be a way for other parts of the government to monitor why exactly the FBI or CSI are performing a Sneak and Peak.

      In the end I feel that we do need this act but there needs to be restrictions. Without the restrictions it is invasion of privacy for all the wrong reasons. Which is why people complain about the Patriot Act.