Blog Feed

In my opinion the Patriot Act has aspects in it where yeah it can prevent future attacks. However I do believe that some parts of the act aren't as clear as they should be. In "A Vital Weapon" Nathan A. Sales says that the agents are using tools that police officers have used for decades. Does this mean that all this time we suffer the risk of the government just being able to listen in our private conversations? Maybe so, in all honesty I think that people who are Pro the Patriot Act just want to make it seem as if there is nothing wrong with it. When in reality there are a lot of loose ends that need to be revised. In the same post it also said that "Agents can monitor a terrorist even if they havent yet found evidence he belongs to a foreign terrorist organization". How is it possible for these agents to just monitor someones daily lives and ways of communications without having any evidence that they are a threat? This to me is one of the biggest reasons why the patriot act needs to be looked over throughly to fix this loose end. In the end its all about being able to convince the judge, and that to me seems unfair. Shouldn't you be able to prove something with that big of a deal.

In "Too Many Needless Provisions" there was a case linked where agents requested the name of people who checked out a biography of Osama Bin Laden. When I read over the article it seemed so crazy for agents to ask for that type of information. Not ask but demand at that. How would checking out a biography of Osama Bin Laden make you a threat, why demand that type of information. Why violate peoples rights in such ways without having a structured reason why? Other point that I found interesting was why should people sacrifice freedom for safety. Not even, just because they are basically stalking people who are "threats" doesn't guarantee that we will be more safe. Sure it has helped in some ways, but the measures taken are a bit out of wack to me.


I also think that overall the Patriot Act is a way to jeopardize our constitution. It violates our privacy, something we shouldn't have to worry about.After finding out about this this whole act im even kinds freaked out just talking on the phone. What if someone is listening on in my conversation what if someone ever just knows my every move. I know it kind of is being dramatic but the whole thought of agents and the government being able to actually do this to other people freaks me out. 

I believe that some provisions of the patriot act could just be removed all together, but it should still be an act that is upheld to provide a sense of safety.

I completely agree with the statement that "There is an inescapable tradeoff between security and liberty." In order to keep tabs on people or investigate, the government would require the ability to check up on, and closely watch persons of interest. At the same time, wire taps, financial  information, and  daily routines are things that the average person would rather keep private. I believe that it was okay for security to be balanced with liberty, but as attacks become more advanced and eminent , the government should adjust things to further ensure the general safety of its citizens, without being too drastic, like hidden cameras being placed in the homes of citizens.

The general conspiracy stereotypes of the government are supported with the way that the patriot act  can, and has been used by the government. It's a waste of money, resources, and just generally a waste of time if its mostly focused towards innocent citizens with less than positive views on some aspects of American Society. Many people would agree that the right to just take things (literally anything thats tangible) because they believe it to be suspicious or evidence without proper justification. The wire taps are bad enough, but the right to take things just because they want to is wrong.  Also, If government agents can actually order internet and library records on the spot, then there's something wrong. Without a real way of justifying their accusations, then they can just run through peoples private lives, without any regard for their rights and privacy laws.

If the patriot act is used for actually preventing terrorist attacks, and with good judgement, plus safeguards (like judge approval for wiretaps and other steps) then it should be left where it is standing, but theres still room for more consideration of the privacy and civil rights

To be completely honest Im not even sure if we till need the PATRIOT Act. It is as if it does not fully stand for what it was made to stand for. Yes everyone wants to feel safe to a certain extent of not having to worry about being in harms way on a daily basics. After 9/11 I’m pretty sure that the idea of being safe was no longer taking easy in the comfort of ones own home or even traveling from one place to the next as a daily routine. 

One thing the U.S. must remember is 9/11 is the past and we have to move forward in a positive manner an not get so wrapped up into the PATRIOT Act that we find ourselves reliving it by doing too many unnecessary investigations. There is a thin line between suspicion for protection an suspicion for insanity. In 1978 Congress decided to establish the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as special and with that the Chief of Justice had to choose federal district judges to review applications for warrants in regards to any investigations that had to do with national security. Any agents that have to or feel as thought they need to investigate will go get a valid warrant that would be issued from a federal district judge and proceed with further investigation. The only problem with that is that most of the time if not all of the time agents whether is is the police, F.B.I, C.I.A etc tend to do a little investigation of their own before they go get a warrant. I feel as though a warrant should be issued before the investigation begins, if it is reasonable belief that an particular individual is creating harm to society then there should not be any problem with getting a warrant. 

There has to be some balance between trying to keep everyone safe from terrorism and not just bombarding the privacy of individuals. The PATRIOT Act was made to protect the citizens not hurt them, when agents do investigations and leave off at a dead end that does not make us feel any safe. It just seems as if the government is not doing their job to the fullest and are checking the backgrounds of the wrong people. 

So far the heighten surveillance seems to be working to some extent, for the simple fact that we have not had a repeat of 9/11 and for that I am very grateful. So I say it’s only needed if it will be in effect to stop terrorism an not just for tracking  personal information. 

​

Lianna Jordan

           

The patriot act is a U.S law that was passed in the wakes of September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks. Its goal was to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies with regards to finding and stopping terrorists.

There are both pros and cons behind the Patriot Act. Some of the pros are the act is useful in assuring people that they are more protected from terrorist attack which is very unlikely to happen. It also makes some soldiers feel like they are trying to defend the act and increase the chances of men and women to join the army.

            The cons of this act is the simple fact that the bill of rights is being abused, it opens up a gate way to pass other bills like the “Cyber Security Act” which is a way to take control of the internet. I feel like this act gives the government too much power. I personally feel like the act means well inreffrence with the tourism, but the government has taken advantage of their inside power and are using this act to do whatever they feel is justice. I like the thought of the re-authorizing that Senator Ron Weyden; Democrat of Organ introduced a bill that would narrow the most controversial provisions of the act section 215. Unfortunately, President Obama, who supported a similar amendment when he was in the Senate, signed the Patriot Act re-authorization without insisting on the Wyden amendment. 

 

The argument of whether or not the u.s.a p.a.t.r.i.o.t act is still needed is only a matter of placing safety and security on a balance scale along with freedom and privacy as well as a matter of being conservative or being liberal. In my opinion,there are many reasons why we still need the Patriot act. Some people may believe the act is interfering and messing with the American beliefs of privacy but I believe it is safer to invade someone's privacy then to end up dealing with another successful terrorist attack. Some people believe that the patriot act can only result in the government receiving too much power and having too much access. Beings though because of the patriot act 15 terrorist plots were disrupted, I feel as though America would be a lot more safer with the act then without. Although it is believed that the patriot act was/is being used for things other then preventing terrorist acts such as putting homeless people off the streets, I'd still believe that things could be much worse without it. The only reason someone could have a major problem with the patriot act was if they were up to something themselves. If you're not up to something, then why worry about the government worrying about you? There is no doubt on the patriot act being successful on what it was supposed to do which was prevent terrorist acts and that's why I believe we still need the u.s.a patriot act.

After considering the opinionated articles from the New York Times, there are definitely people for and against the USA Patriot Act. However it seems like there are more people who agree that the act is and/or will deprive the American public of privacy that they deserve. I have to be honest that I am in agreement with some major points on both sides. Personally I think that hearts behind the creation of the USA Patriot Act we’re in the right place. The purpose of the act was to create a greater sense of safety. This idea in itself is reasonable, the problem lies within the limitations that should be set. Some of the things that this act allows are unnecessary. For example the government is allowed to check what type of books a person is interested in through their library records. I think it is interesting how people who check out a certain book can be viewed as suspicious. What about though, the person who wrote the book in the first place? Are they also viewed as suspicious?

This act in itself has redefined what a terrorist is because the requirements of being a suspicious person are not specific enough. Terrorism is the main concern, however many feel that the focus is to take over the lives of Americans by invading their privacy. Certainly this would raise debate because privacy is something that Americans feel like they are owed. Americans want safety but not at the cost of losing their privacy. Something could and should be done to please them in both ways. Maybe the techniques that are allowed by means of this act could be change so that innocent Americans aren’t being interrogated, in a sense. If efforts to protect the U.S continue to be put in the wrong place it may turn out for the worst. One comment brought out that this issue may be leading us closer and closer to a dictatorship. Another said that essentially the terrorist have won because of this controversy. Both of these statement are exactly what we don’t want to happen so I think its best that the whole act should not be changed rather some pieces should be tweaked. If not, our reality will become the fiction of Tony Scott’s Enemy Of the State.

The Patriot Act breaks out to be a law that is empowered by the government, which beholds enforcement's such as surveillance and investigations. I, certainly believe that the Patriot Act has protected the U.S from virtuous attacks. People may consider dropping the law because they have the attitude of "we're not going to get hit anymore" or something along them lines. But, No! If we drop the law that will draw more attention and it would take away our own safety and outlooks upon our radar. If there was one thing, just one thing that George W. Bush did correctly, it would be signing the Patriot Act law. On another hand, is the Patriot Act a threat to the bill of rights as well? 'We're losing security and liberty, inescapably'; although we're just gaining and adding more surveillance. I most certainly agree with Eric Posner, he thinks we still need the Patriot Act. 'If not the whole law, at least some portions to protect people from threats to their safety.' I think we should still keep the law, simply because nothing happened within 11 years since the terrible attacking from 9/11. Besides, what will we do without radars and surveillance to protect us from oncoming attacks? Is there another method?

The power that the Patriot Act allows the government to yield is unnecessary to achieve the means it sets out to accomplish. For example, the pieces of the law that allow agents access to library records is completely bogus. The possibility of abuse of this law is far greater than it's ability to do good. Rather than actually taking a hard look at the consequences of our best idea- being national security- pride and patriotism or shaming others for lack thereof in questioning this law has brought us to hastily procured legislation that restrict basic freedoms set in our Constitution. 

The threat lies in the fact that most common citizens, let alone the Senate or House members, don't understand its provisions whether they be positive or negative. Rather than attempt to improve international relations thus making those suspected of terrorism less inclined to hate us on principle, we relinquish our freedoms from ourselves by letting the law go as it stands now without further dissection. I believe with the amount of corruption within the government and the judicial system, individual courts or FBI agents with NSLs should not be able to pick and choose who has their Constitutional rights taken away based on suspicion like what types of books they like to read. 

I am not saying in any way that we should not investigate possible terror plots, but the current standing of the Patriot Act puts the basic everyday rights of citizens in jeopardy when they are not the ones who should be suspected of terrorism. The position of, "well if you're doing nothing wrong then it shouldn't matter, right?" grinds my gears especially. So basically, you're not religious so you shouldn't have the right to practice any religion you want anyway. We all think you're guilty, so you don't need a fair trial anyway, right? 

The Patriot Act will remain a controversial issue for the days, months, and years ahead. The Patriot Act is looking to stop terrorists and make our country safer. We as people have safety concerns everyday and there's always a risk of getting hurt in some way. In the NYtimes article they say that although the threats from Al Queda have diminished that the Patriot Act is still necessary to protect the people from possible threats. It also said that the Act isn't only for terrorists and and Al Queda, but ordinary criminals that affect our everyday lives. The tracking of communications is what throws me off. But thinking about it logically if you aren't doing anything wrong, then there shouldnt be a problem with someone tracking your calls right? Yes that is a complete invasion of ones privacy but in the long-run it could be helpful to stop henious crimes. In my opinion this ACT should remain a law. It's helped us and who knows what's going to happen next it could be very prominent in the future. 

After reading the different essays in the forum about the Patriot Act, it's obviously clear that there is a number of people that agree and disagree with the provisions of this act. It causes quite a swarm of debate about whether or not we still need it, and whether or not it's useful today. The safety of the citizens in this country is the main concern. That is all that the government is trying to accomplish with this act.

It's important to note, that this act does not just focus on international terrorists, but also terrorists within our own country. The act does not focus on "innocent" Americans, so no one should be too worried about being "spied" on, unless they're doing something they shouldn't. Basically, the government won't waste their time spying on anyone that does not need to be watched. They focus on people that have the potential to harm others. 

Due to the rise of technology, and more resources available for people to purchase (legally, and illegally), I believe that the act should still be a law. The security, and safety of the citizens should never be compromised, and should continue to be the highest priority for this government. Although some may be unaware, this act has actually stopped more than 30 terror plots. So, while some may think this is wrong, and unjust, it's better to think about how this has helped, rather than how it hurts. 

The Patriot Act causes quite an amount of debate that questions the priority of national security over the privacy of the American people. While keeping the country safe from terrorists should be a top priority, many people feel uncomfortable that the people that are keeping them safe, are the same ones that could potentially bug their houses.

Honestly, I don't believe that the average American would enjoy being spied on, yet the Patriot Act justifies it by mentioning that it'll pick out all the bad apples from our populous. But how? Under what assumption? Sure, there are judges to go through. Agents themselves are also required to provide reasonable evidence before any “bugging” can begin. Surely, we can trust our fellow government workers to decide who gets to be followed and who doesn't. Can we not?

Before freaking out and checking your walls for microphones, cameras and other things of the sort, let's understand what kind of people are the ones being tracked. Who the Patriot Act follows isn't common people like you and I. The average American isn't going to be followed, regardless of ethnicity, gender, or religion. Tourists, suspects, and other people that are actively moving in and out of the country are possible victims of the Patriot Act. The law is dedicated to keeping surveillance over sketchy and dishonest characters, and preventing them from possibly committing a dangerous crime that could breach the security of this country.

My personal opinion on the matter is that we still need the Patriot Act. I don't agree with the out government spying on people, especially using suspicion as a way to track down potential terrorists. But, like any good parent that wants the best for their children, they'll do what is necessary to protect their children (let's hope). Citizens of this country shouldn't be alarmed, this so-called “spying” isn't anything new. It has been going on for years. And as long as you feel comfortable living the life you currently are living, I'd say don't worry about the government or the Patriot Act. It's for the best.

Though this assignment I have read both sides of the argument for and against the Patriot Act, and have tried to express my ideas on this concept without bias.

The Patriot Act was made to aid the keeping of US citizens safe form terrorist. The Act was created after the incident of Sept. 11. In a high state of fear the bill was passed and made into law with in four days, rather than the many months that is common for passing a bill.

The Patriot Act gives federal offices such as the NSA and FBI authority to track and intercept communication. Such tactics can be used to investigate for law enforcement and foreign intelligence.

While reading the four articles that were assigned I saw a trend building. “Technology has advanced. Defensive technologies have not kept up,” wrote Eric Posner- (There’s still a need).

Also on the side for the Patriot Act was Nathan A. Sales (A vital weapon). He stressed the point that the tools used for the interceptions were similar, if not the same, tools that police officers have used for decades. Sales went on to explain that NSA agents are required to receive permission and a warrant from a Judge.

These are important factors, and necessary in the apprehension of criminals, but when is there a crossing of the morality line?

Jeffrey Rosen’s article ‘Too much power’ caught my eye with one of his quotes. “Reported in 2007 by the Inspector General of the Justice Department. ‘Widespread and serious abused’ of the authority by the FBI under the patriot act”.

But the point that most intrigued me was that of Susan N. Herman (Too many needless provision ‘Section 215’)

Herman’s main argument was that against the Patriot Act. One incident she quotes was that of an NSA agent requesting the records of a civilian’s library checkouts.

How does the library check outs of one civilian show that they may or may not have terroristic plots? Should US citizens now be afraid to do research or write a book report in a free country? Also how is it fair for people unlike anyone else to have more power than others?

NSA agents have the power to simply give one reason to a judge for the investigation of a civilian and their claim can be granted as justified. If all humans are equal then such power should not be given. I am not against foiling terroristic plots, but I believe that is not proactive to give such power and responsibilities to ordinary people who could be our neighbors. 

The way I felt about the movie, as the beginning started I didn't think that some people in the government and congress would do something as shady as what happened to Phillip Hammersley. It made me think about how the government can turn on one another. It also made me feel that it would turn on the people in the country. The government only let the people hear what they want to hear. 

The government in the film is portrayed as shady,insane, and not trusted. In the beginning when Phillip Hammersley video of him being killed was revealed because the government was tapping the guy phone that switched the tape at the murder scene. This made me feel that the government does not care about people privacies. Looking closely at the movie when they were tapping the guy phone that had the video of Phillip Hammersley death, they were tapping his phone line and computer for their own safety. This makes me feel that some people in the government only does things to protect themselves and not that people. 

The government should not tap phone lines, computers, or anything that has to do with people privacies. I do believe they should tap phone lines if they desperately believe that it is an attack on America or something suspicious. National Security as went up since 9/11 and other attacks that succeeded. This mean that the government needs to take action on the bigger things. Tapping phones is not the only way people connect. Computers aren't the only way. If that is the case, are they going to start checking our mail that comes to our homes? Our facebooks,or twitters? People are getting more clever as the years go by. They know the government expects so they do the unexpected. Such as 9/11.

​

In this movie I found the things that occurred on the governments behalf not to be surprising at all. The American government keeps major things from us that go against all of our rights as citizens. I don’t know who determines the definition of the terms “safety”, “protect” and “citizen” and what it means to the government of the United States. It is appalling to me that the “citizens” we are “protecting” had no idea that devices used and created for terrorist could at any moment be them.

In the movie Dean played by Will Smith kept repeating that he had no idea what was going on and why it was happening. In the scene when he meets up with the real Brill his ignorance as a citizen shows also when him and his wife are in the kitchen and she emphasizes how important it is for us to know about the changes that are made and how our privacy might be on the line. That is the issue with Americans they don’t follow up on current government changes and they don’t ask questions when there is confusion with a bill or law.

This movie was created well before the 9-11 attack, which says a lot. In movies I realized that if it is in a film already and it involves sensitive information about how the government operates. The government is way past the technology they use to “detect terrorists”. I do not agree with the government having access to cutting my phone lines, tapping into my phone and freezing my accounts. In the movie and reality the public should be more aware of the governments gadgets and when it is happening to them. Overall the thought of someone constantly watching you is here and always has been. I have every doubt that the government does not know the definition of acceptable and enough evidence to investigate someone. To be frank we are all being investigated and watched. I wouldn't be surprised if I got locked up for my Anti American views they might think that is enough evidence to wreck my home and ruin my life just like in the movie. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            

In the movie enemy of the state the goverment isn't really portrayed as good or bad it is more of the nsa being shown as this monster with to much power.  They use there power to kill off or try and kill off any one who gets in there way of trying to get the "bill" aka patriot act passed. In this movie if the nsa thinks that an individuals is up to something they have no privacy at all.  From cameras being put in there smoke alarms to there air vents to mics in clothing every movie and sound they make the goverment will know about it.  It is scary to think about that you are not even alone in you own home. I think that the goverment should have some kind of accesses but no where near the accesses that they have in this movie.  But I don't think that the people in the movie where aloud to have that kind of accesses the reason being during the meeting when there is a mic found in the hotel room the guy talking says something like when i find out who did this they wont have a job something was said along those line.  I don't think that our freedom should ever have restrictions at all.  

Cyndi Lynn Sheridan

American Government - D

September 14, 2012

Enemy of the State:

Throughout the film Enemy of the State, the government is portrayed as being very cynical and abusers of the system. I never knew that the government had the power to view all your phone calls, text messages, and emails. This is known as invasion of privacy which I thought was completely not allowed, unless given permission by a judge or the person was convicted of a crime. It is scary to think that one day we are going to live in a society where everything we do is recorded, and it makes me scared to even live my life. I should definitely not feel this way considering our country is known to be full of freedom and liberty. 

It was a disgrace watching such an important agency (NSA) use their power for personal purposes. A large amount of the things done in this movie were done illegally such as the installment of cameras/microphones in Will Smith’s attire. Every conversation Will Smith had with someone was observed and recorded by the NSA, just so they were able to save themselves from massive destruction. This is definitely unacceptable and makes me wonder if officials ever listened to conversations I had with my family/friends. Obviously it makes a difference if I am suspected to be a terrorist, but then again anything is possible. Although the PATRIOT Act is definitely a controversial issue, there are some things that definitely need to be altered, such as section 215. I learned that the government is allowed to seize “any tangible thing without a warrant from emails to browsing histories to library records.” This defeats the purpose of privacy, however I think in cases where terrorism is expected then having the ability to just go through someones personal records is necessary. I think it’s difficult to find a balance between the security of a country and the privacy of the citizens. In my opinion, I feel like the government realizes what happened without the Patriot Act, which is 9/11, so they want to take as much precaution as possible no matter what the circumstances. Honestly all I care about is my safety, privacy comes second.