Blog Feed

Patriot Act: Battle of the Beliefs

The government only investigates potential terrorists, meaning if you don't associate yourself in illegal actions you should not be intimidated by their capabilities. You have access to all your constitutional values if you behave in a proper manner. In society, technology continues to advance making it easier for terrorists to target America, therefore it is necessary to take precautions before the damage happens. I definitely believe the Patriot Act is imperative for the safety of the citizens in the United States.

From reading all the articles and comments, from New York Times, there are still debates playing between being for or against the Patriot Act. I believe that my government is doing everything in their power to prevent another 9/11. 9/11 was a wake up call to America, that our government was slacking off. Because of the Patriot act they are now fighting the War Against Terror by hacking in to the accused dangerous people's records and history. Now our government can seek another attack before it happens. Statistics have shown that at least 15 terrorist plots have been tampered since 2002. And normal citizens should not worry because unless they are doing something illegal then they have nothing to worry about. I believe this law has the potential to be and continues to be a game changer.

Although this law is a pivotal moment in our recent history, there are still many controversies surrounding it. I understand perfectly why American citizens should be upset. Although I did mention that normal citizens should not worry because unless they are doing something illegal they have nothing to worry about, sometimes the information the government receives can be misleading. For instance, if a college student wanted to do a paper on the Manhattan project and he needed information on Atomic bombs and how to make them. The government could misinterpret what the student wanted to do. Because the evidence is against the student he might get life in prison. (The scenario is fake and made up) Other scenarios that could be mislead the government would be  like if an American-Arabian brought 3 guns for protection but was arrested because someone thought he wanted to engage in terrorism. American citizens do have rights to the first Amendment and should have their privacy protected. Also in a way government will become enraged with power. The affect of that will result in corruption. The corruption could ruin what America has fought so hard to become. If that is the case then America will lose the value of what it once was and as a country we can not allow that to happen.

With those scenarios in mind along with the statement I made before I'm going to believe what one of the comments made in the A Vital Weapon article. The Act should remain and stay as is but there should be a fine line between what should be looked into and what should be considered terrorist. Every American should have the right to do what ever without being questioned by the government. Unfortunately to do that at this point peoples privacy will remain tampered but for the greater good America will be safe.

After reading the editorials I agree that we do not need the PATRIOT Act anymore. The PATRIOT Act has been in the spotlight of many International debates. The PATRIOT Act was something to make the American people feel safer, more secure in times of need. Now, The PATRIOT Act is just something there that is completely unnecessary in most senses. 

In the right, liberal place we are in now, most people are already against the PATRIOT Act because many believe it is a violation of privacy. I, too believe that, but I also feel as though we never needed the PATRIOT Act in the first place. In class, we discussed things like the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Those are agencies that are here to gather intelligence and try to prevent things from happening like 9/11. Can we seriously say that there was no surveillance before 9/11 or the PATRIOT Act? The United States already measures in place that could of stopped 9/11, strong measures but they didn't work, not because of the lack of surveillance but by the lack of execution in our part. 

Many liberates have been taken away since the PATRIOT Act has been in play. Once could even argue that the PATRIOT Act hurts democratic ideals in a sense. Democratic ideals are such things as: self-entrepreneur, self-liberties and most importantly, patriotism. You might be wondering, why patriotism, isn't the PATRIOT Act supposed to be something that makes you want to be an American? Well, for must it us, but for others who don't have blond hair, blue eyes it could be something that deteriorates someone's moral in this Country. After 9/11, muslims became the face of terrorism. Many muslims feared for their lives. Sikhs had been targeted most because of their appearance. 9/11 and the Patriot Act directly effected 2 religions. Thus, hurting their patriotism towards this country. 

As the PATRIOT Act hurts democratic ideals, they can also strengthen them. Egalitarianism is something that has benefited from this. After the PATRIOT Act, many people had thought their privacy and rights were not being respected, they began adopting a moral of negativity against the United States and the Bush administration.  Making the Bush administration considered one of the failures among the other administrations in the past. John Locke had wrote this as "natural" rights, well, if someone's privacy is being threatened, they think their natural rights are being threatened as well. This in a direct contradiction to what many in the history of this Country wanted.

As you read many arguments about the PATRIOT Act, one can only adopt their view on it. In times of social liberalism, progressivism, and libertarianism, one could even argue that the PATRIOT Act is something even a communists nation could adopt. Let's hope our liberties will be reinstated if this bill ever falls apart.

By, Mohamed Marzouk

Do We Still Need the PATRIOT Act?

 USA PATRIOT ACT is about providing security and safety to citizens of USA and to prevent any national r foreign criminal activity or terrorist attacks. Also, it was created in response to 9/11 which was a definitely a big reality and a threat to all citizens of America. As this law provides safe and secure life to the people of its country, i think it still need to be in state of law because terrorism has not reached to its end in USA and people living in America still have right to live their life freely without fear of being targeted by any terrorism attack. Also it is the responsibility of Government to make such anti terrorism laws which can assure citizens of their safe lives. In this case, it is definitely true that this law is the need of people because they want there secure lives and no one in USA want to see any other attack similar to 9/11 and no one want to loose lives of their loved ones. 

So in conclusion, i would say PATRIOT ACT should remain in the state of LAW as it promises secure lives of Americans and protects people from domestic or international terrorists.

The Patriot Act was put in place to protect and secure the American people, however, more than a decade later the act has not been altered to truly give back the privacy that the constitution promises Americans. While some sections of the Patriot Act are still very much a necessity, others can be altered or even removed to provide an up to date version of the act. In the place of these out of date sections new and , what should have been, required sections need to be inserted. Sec.101. Counterterrorism Fund, which serves as the introduction to the act, states that the fund is to provide finances to Federal agencies for a multitude of different reasons including reestablishing offices or facilities that have been damed or destroyed as a result of terrorism. Although this claus may be perceived as helpful we no longer have a direct and immediate need for this type of fund. To put it in perspective, other funds of the United States are severely lacking to say the least and Americans are suffering due to the misplacement of crucial money. 

In addition, the concerns of the Patriot Act should truly begin with the man in charge. "If an agent makes the required assertion that he or she believes information relevant to a terrorism investigation might be found, the court “must” issue the order without actually reviewing whether there is any justification for the agent prying into the affairs of someone who may not even be suspected of anything." - Susan N. Herman. This is where the trouble begins. With the amount of spying or "supervision" that agencies have the authority to conduct on any person(s) there need to be some serious revisions to make sure that authority is not being abused. 

             The Patriot act is just a pretty painted legal opportunity slowly striping away U.S citizen’s rights. The patriot does have its perks when the person that they are targeting is actually planning a terroristic act. The problem that the government might “run into” is targeting individuals who show no sign of being a terrorist.

             In my opinion the Patriot act is simply racial profiling behind wires. After the nine eleven attack the news and other sources that deliver our information to us put the idea in the peoples head that anyone from the middle east is a terrorist and we should be afraid if we see these people in garbs and near tall buildings. With that being said             when the act was passed everyone thought it was a fantastic idea because it would only focus on the people who attacked our country.

            The issue with that is this act not only takes away the privacy of the citizens but takes away the right for us to know when it is happening to us as well. It is too much power for the government to have. The government gets to define what enough evidence and how appropriate it is for a tap to be done on someone’s phone, search emails etc.

            I honestly do not believe that the Patriot Act is explained to the citizens enough for them to understand exactly what it means and how it will affect them. I also believe that the Patriot  Act not longer serves as its original purpose if more citizens within the country are under surveillance than the “terrorist” we are trying to stop and keep track of. 

In this film, a deaf woman has an intense argument with her boyfriend. At the end of the argument, the boyfriend storms out of the apartment and leaves his girlfriend home alone. While he's gone, everything around her shakes and she has no idea what's going on outside. Soon after the shaking stops, the boyfriend comes home covered in dust and crying. 

As a director, I was inspired. The entire film was silent, minus the vibrations of the shaking apartment. It made me think of the many different kinds of people that experienced 9/11, and how only one perpestive is told. It's always able-bodied men or women that can hear and see. I didn't even think of any other perspectives until I saw that film.

As an American, I was speechless. I was in first grade when the attacks happened, and as far as I could tell, that was a pretty good day for me. I got out of school early, and my family was all at my house so I got to play with my cousins. It wasn't until later when I was told the actual story did I understand how horrible that day was for Americans everywhere. And every year it's a reminder that we as a country are stil not over what happened.

There is no room for debate, at least according to the way in which this bill was passed. The patriot act was introduced for one over arching reason, terrorism. Even though it seems like terrorism has gone away and no need for the law and therefore should be abolished, right? No, wrong! It is more vital than ever to have this law in place, to show we are a strong country but also a smart one. If something happened once its bound to happen again if nothing is changed, If they got rid of this law it would be like wiping the slate clean allowing terrorism which could bring us mere moments away from a catastrophe like 9/11.  Why would one need to abolish this law and start a new? So people don’t get scanned at airports? There are two reasons people would decide against this law, one being convenience purposes because people rather be lazy then be safe or people don’t feel safe with their information/privacy in the governments hands. This law, the U.S.A.  P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act allows the government access to information they could use to help them capture terrorist. On a personal level I wouldn’t mind my privacy being “violated” if it is to help catch terrorist. Listening in on my phone calls, tracking web traffic? All they would find is I’m a nerd, laugh, and then move on. What are you teenagers hiding, your conversations with your special someone? The government doesn’t care.

Now I feel like a stronger rebuttal to this topic is the government has too much power, and I could see this being a problem in countries that are not the US. The Patriot Act simply asks if they could use information that they need access to help capture terrorist.

Imagine it like this… We go to a school in the School District of Philadelphia, in the SDP they filter websites and don’t allow access to certain websites, that they decide are beneficial or not. There have been times where you needed to find information or watch a video to complete a task and it was blocked. Well imagine the government trying to capture terrorists and they had a filter like this, figuratively. Imagine if they had these exact same filters. It holds back the process and delays the capture of terrorists, sometimes delaying them too much… 

Nathan A. Sales states that the Patriot Act is needed to protect America from terrorists. He also states that there will be some elaborated safeguard measures so the officers are not going to abuse this power. However, when I watched "Enemy of the State" I can't just say that this movie is not going to happen in real life. Someday -hopefully never, someone inside of the government or someone with power will use the tools for their own vain needs.  

"This tool can only be used to investigate international terrorism, not domestic. And it doesn’t apply to Americans, only to temporary visitors like tourists." - Nathan A. Sales

I have some slight dilemma in this statement because what if, just what if, someone inside US and that is a citizen started to work for the terrorists? Because to be honest, we can never trust everyone because everyone has their own needs. The Patriot Act will give us more problems than we already have. Great power comes with great responsibilities. And who define the word "appropriate"? Also, what are the necessary tools that we need to prevent terrorism?

And where will be our privacy go? Just like Susan N. Herman said in her article, "The Patriot Act is jeopardizing the people's values, freedom of speech, association and religion, privacy and dude process." Everything that is being recorded can backfire and ruin everyone. Privacy is the big problem in this law.

It's not that I am fully hating on the Patriot Act, I am just trying to voice my opinion that this topic needed more time and tweaking for it to be okay. There has to be a lot of thinking and debate when it comes to this kind of protection. Yes, we need protection but this protection can be our weakness in the future. 

I feel as though we should keep the Patriot Act because it ensures the safety of everyone. As shown in this quote. “As we lose some of our security, it is natural and proper for government to increase surveillance and other security measures..” This quote is valid because the less security we have the more the government will need to step in and take control. As many people don’t know their are restrictions and strict safeguards to the Patriot Act such as you must show proof as to why you suspect someone is a terrorist and you also must get a judge’s permission before tapping into anyones phone.  The F.B.I is flawed as well as everything else, nothing is perfect. Social media and technology has become so advanced that nothing is truly private. You don’t need the Patriot Act to have your privacy violated when you have social networks. The Patriot Act isn’t made to be in everyone’s personal life, instead it is to ensure that everyone is protected from terrorist and other threats to life. In conclusion, keeping the Patriot Act would be very beneficial and productive in the long run.

America, being the top dog of the world, is not only a country with many hands to hold and many countries that are holding on with it. America is also a country with many guns pointed at it. Many envious hearts, and evil eyes. Though, America cannot stop the threats that people hold against, America can try to stop those actions that are have been and are being portrayed. One way that America has decided to help themselves and the citizens, is with the Patriots Act. There may be so much debate or whether the Act is good for us, or an invasion of privacy… what does one have to loose? Aside from if the Government uses this weapon as a way to "stop crime" , or if they use it as a way to block terrorism for the country. With my person opinion, a regular citizen should not care. The government does not have the time, space, or ability to care that your child may have stolen a dollar candy bar from a store and it calling all their friends about it. Rather, when there are physical and literal threats being announced to potentially bombing that family house. Now for a Mofia family, the privacy act may be a bit more threatening. So in result, only those objected to the act are those with something to hide. &Those who feel the act gives the government 100% lethal ability to override your life, don't understand that's NOT what it's for. I feel as if they could care less for the one individual, vs the millions around the country. If it's a way to protect us, then so be it. But if it's a way to get out of hand and ruin the lives of the people, then fight it. 

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

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.

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.