#4 - due by Wed. 9/30
#5 - due by Mon. 10/5
I've wanted to add another avenue to these assignments, and so we'll be trying it out this time around. As an additional requirement to this assignment I'd like you to complete the following, each in a separate comment/reply. Yes, that means you'll have to post twice. So, I'll count this as two journals.
1. Identify in which "camp" you reside on the issue(s) surrounding the Patriot Act and other post-9/11 legislation as it is presented by these readings. Here I'm looking for you to argue your position with efficiency; i.e., short and to the point.
Here I'd really like you to explain your feelings and thoughts about this topic and the authors you have just read. Using their writing and arguments, and your own experiences and knowledge of this topic describe your informed opinion or stance. Consider the following for guidance: How have you arrived at your opinion? On what points do you agree/disagree with the authors we've read? What evidence will you cite to back up your argument?
2. Respond to one other student's comment, citing how they have constructed their opinion or stance. Did they use the strongest evidence they could have? Do they adequately explain how their evidence supports their opinion or stance? How did they succeed? How could they improve?
I know that it may take a moment for statements to build up before you can re:comment (that is, reply to comment). Therefore, I will be joining in on the "chat" to help get things going!
After 9/11 it is obvious that our lives have been changed quite directly by the new laws and procedures that were passed in our country. I understand why people feel they are being intruded on by the government and that government surveillance should be illegal but I agree with the government on this one at least. I do not think that we as Americans should be bothered by the Patriot Act and such because it does not affect us as citizens in a way that we should feel threatened. The government can in my opinion continue to surveil but only under the present circumstances. I know that if someone is listening into my phone conversations they wont hear anything that would be of interest to them so it does not bother me. What I took from the article that stood out to me the most was when the author wrote that court cases could be thrown out by the government if they were deemed a threat to our foreign relations and national security etc. I do not agree with this because as the author of the article stated, a person who wanted to make a case on the basis that they were tortured by our government could have his case simply ignored. As in the case with Guantanamo Bay, many believe that certain people are being held there for years because they are suspected terrorists. I believe every case should be tried no matter what the circumstances are, the cases can be held secret but dealt with in the appropriate way.
ReplyDeleteRe: Alen
ReplyDeleteThere is one common thread between the Nelson and Moore articles that has been identified clearly in your response Alen, and that is the general state of affairs and livelihood in the United States has changed drastically since the events of 9/11/2001.
Indeed it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens; however, when is it intruding versus protecting? I gather from Nelson and Moore that there has been a distinct motivation behind the use of specific rhetoric when discussing issues involving (and as some might argue here, non involving) terrorism/ts.
Whether used to discriminate again Muslims by identifying a 'problem' then prescribing the solution -- as Moore writes, "Communications scholars have claimed that 'by framing social and political issues in specific ways, new organizations declare the underlying causes [...] of a problem and establish criteria for evaluating potential remedies for the problem" (8) --, whether used to skew the balance, as Nelson writes, "the rhetoric of public policy after September 11 encourages us to believe that the preservation of freedom and the common good requires our universal acquiescence to technological invasions of privacy (2) --, or to water the line as to what constitutes "significant harm to national defense or foreign relations" (Shapiro)... one thing is clear: these authors point out that the way things are worded seems to have an affect on the outcome of things to follow.
Perhaps then the question is, as some have illustrated: At what cost will we allow a "safer America"? When are our freedoms without jeopardy and our vulnerabilities well watched? When is your neighbor nothing more than a tattle-tale, and the camera on your laptop a stoic spy?
If I had to choose a side on the issue concerning the patriot act, I would say that I am for it. First of all I believe that the exra precautions and reforms the government has taken to ensure the security of it's nation has proved effective. Since 9/11 there hasn't been any other significant act of terrorism like the attack on the world trade center. This shows that the patriot act is effective in protecting the nation from terrorist acts. I admit that when I first heard that the government was wire tapping our phones and listening to our conversations I did feel that my rights and the rights of others were being violated. Now understanding the situation more fully I realize that it is the lesser evil to choose from, the other being unprotected from foreign terrorists. I agree with Alen when he states that anything the government overhears from people's conversations should be of no interest to them. This also suggests that people should not be threatened unless they had something to hide.
ReplyDeleteOn the point of Obama's administration invoking the states secrets privilege I can see how it has improved. I can recall back to the time when photos of Guantanamo Bay detainees were witheld by the Bush Administration from the general public. Now with the new rules stating that "government agency must convince the attorney general and other top Justice officials that releasing information would 'cause significant harm to national defense or foreign relations'"(Shapiro). This would help prevent the misuse of the privilege and protect the rights of prisoners of war. This I fully support.
Everyone knows that 9/11 changed everything, no longer were we safe from all the horrors of extremism that plagued other parts of the world. Sure the United States had been a victim of extremist attacks on their embassies and ships before, but those were in far away places like Kenya and Yemen. 9/11 was the first real attack on our own soil since Pearl Harbor by a foreign enemy. We needed to become more vigilant, for our own safety. So we ushered in the Patriot Act and other similar legislation, but at what price? Is it really worth forfeiting our own freedoms and privacy for safety? Was it worth giving the government the right to use torture, under the alias of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” for our own safety?
ReplyDeleteAfter 9/11 it really was necessary for us to become more vigilant, because we slipped up. The CIA knew that men with connections to Al Qaeda were enrolled in a flight school. They said nothing because there was no dialogue between the CIA, who have no authority to act on US soil, and the FBI who do have the authority (the bitter rivalry between the CIA and the FBI didn’t exactly lend a helping hand). With no power to keep surveillance on these men or dialogue with FBI, the CIA let the matter drop. Months later these same men flew jetliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. This possibly could have prevented this attack had we simply remained vigilant, or had the FBI been alerted and allowed to do their job properly. (Terrorists Among Us by Steve Emerson)
But instead we passed the Patriot Act, granting these agencies more power while at the same time restricting our civil liberties. “But,” the defenders of the Patriot Act might say “since the Patriot Act there has been no more terrorist attacks on our soil.” Or they might bring precedents to justify their actions such as Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Any statistician will tell you that CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION. Just because in the summer the sale of ice cream and the number of people who die by drowning reach their peak does not mean one has anything to do with the other. With the internment camps the US government admitted after the war that it was wrong for them to do that. Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was not as obtrusive in the daily life of the average citizen as the Patriot Act potentially is.
I am not totally against the idea of intrusions of civil liberties in the name of our security, but there must be some sort of check on these powers granted to encroach on our civil liberties to make sure that there are no abuses. However currently there exists no form of review to make sure that the powers granted under the Patriot Act are not abused. The law as written puts the government as totally in the right, with no checks on potential abuses. Something must be done to protect our rights.
I believe the USA Patriot Act can be used for the common good even if it invades privacy. After the events of september eleventh new technologies have been accepted as tools to serve the common good, rather than a threat to individual privacy. There are two such software analyzed in the text, Protecting the common good: technology, objectivity, and privacy, the software are known as FaceIt and Carnivore. FaceIt, “automatically detects human presence, locates and tracks faces, extracts face images, and performs identification by matching against a database of people it has seen before or pre-enrolled users”(Nelson 3). I believe this software does not invade the individual privacy because the only harm done is having your face on a database, which in all honesty is the equivalent of carrying around an identification. This software provides a saftey for Americans in which they can be protected from known criminals or suspects. The other software known as Carnivore is an, “email surveillance software created by the FBI to combat terrorism, espionage, information warfare, child pornography, serious fraud, and other felonies by connection to an internet service provider such as American online, Earth link, or Prodigy”(Nelson 3). There is no threat to the individual privacy of an American citizen here unless you are holding child pornography and do not want the government to find out. The Carnivore software can prove to be very useful if it can track down all the things it promises to find, and it may all help the cause of the common good. The shift of ideals that came with September eleventh have changed the minds of many Americans that believed that the government was invading an individuals privacy, there was an increase in the belief of surveillence for the common good.
ReplyDeleteRe: Adam Chuback
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying in your journal entry. I especially found the outside information that you have placed in your journal to be very good examples of the government switching safety for civil liberties. I also found this comparison to be interesting, “Just because in the summer the sale of ice cream and the number of people who die by drowning reach their peak does not mean one has anything to do with the other.” I also believe that some coincidences may be over analyzed and be used by the government as an excuse to push legislation or increase power. This does not mean that I do not have faith in my government but I would also like to see more regulation or checking to make sure these powers are not abused. On a side note I think you make a good arguement.
9/11 changed the way we as Americans feel about security and surveillance in this country. I feel we believed that our government would always be there to protect us and that our security was assured. The events of 9/11 shattered that viewpoint, it put fear into a country that was felt very self-assured and safe. We questioned why it had happened and why our government had been helpless to stop it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the tightening of security with the Patriot Act was a step in the right direction. Some argue that these new restrictions intrude on our civil liberties, and although this is a reasonable argument ,I disagree.
The average American will not even feel the affect of this act, but certain politicians would like us to think otherwise. Although I believe in the use of the Patriot Act, I do not condone it's use in an unchallenged and unregulated manner. The government should have the power to do what it needs to do, but it needs to be kept in check by the people.
As well intentioned as it might be, the Patriot Act does have its flaws. As Nelson points out in "Protecting the Common Good: Technology, Objectivity, and Privacy", the act "significantly expands law enforcement's authority to invade privacy without meaningful judicial oversight" (70). I think the act and other Post 9/11 legislation should continue to be put to use, but also should be reviewed for mistakes and oversights. Maybe these revisions will help our leaders come to a compromise that has all our best interests at heart.
Re: Nick
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick and he said it clearer than I could especially in his second paragraph where he says "The average American will not even feel the affect of this act, but certain politicians would like us to think otherwise. Although I believe in the use of the Patriot Act, I do not condone it's use in an unchallenged and unregulated manner". And this also has something to do with what Cristian wrote about "over-analyzing". The government can listen in to all my phone conversations and they wont hear anything interesting but a select group of politicians would like to make it sound as if they are violating and restricting my freedom because of that when in fact I believe that in the long run this is for the common good and for the protection of our freedom in the long run. Nick also goes on to say that the Patriot Act has its flaws, and quotes the article by Nelson where the author writes the act "significantly expands law enforcement's authority to invade privacy without meaningful judicial oversight" (70). Points like these teeter the scale on which side someone could agree with because this is a very valid point that the government could abuse this power because it would not be checked over by anyone however it would not affect the common American who is not participating in any illegal activity such as terrorism or child-pornography.
I, personally, am in favor of the Patriot Act passed post September 11, 2001. I believe this act was passed in order to protect the common people although it clearly is a violation of individual privacy. I, however, do not find that to be much of an issue; I don’t think it affects everyday people today. The goal of this Patriot Act is to fish out terrorism in the process and preparation rather than at the time of the incident. Unless you are a terrorist or a person of bad intensions, you have nothing to worry about. The government is not interested in your facebook accounts or your emails to family and friends unless they have reason to be. They obviously more involved it detecting signs of terrorist acts. I therefore do not agree with the article we’d read in the CP titled “Protecting the Common Good: Technology, Objectivity and Privacy,” by Lisa Nelson. I believe Nelson is stating her opinion of opposition to the Patriot Act, clearly stating that she believes the government is using a rhetoric method of convincing people that the Patriot Act, although a mild invasion of privacy, was put into action in order to protect and benefit society. I believe there is no rhetoric method being applied to the statements made by the government, I believe, in reality, this is just how it is.
ReplyDeleteAs for the article regarding the states secrets privilege, I find the idea and overall use of the “privilege” to be nonsense. I find the thought of a president ‘ordering’ a judge to throw a case away without trial to be unfair and unjust. I believe every case has its reason for being a court case, as well as every case being treated equally among all court cases meaning it being presented to a judge and jury and receiving the attention it is meant to receive. I do not believe there should be an exception in this world to prevent a plaintiff from stating their case and a defendant from being found guilty or innocent.
Post-9/11 legislation is not only unconstitutional it is also racist. The USA Patriot Act and other legislation put in place after September 11th, 2001 were designed to send the country into fear and disillusionment while the government supposedly protected our national security as well as the "common good". Similarly, to the "social contract" theory set out by John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, the Patriot Act is meant to be a contract between the US government and its citizens trading in their freedoms for the protection of our "life, liberty and property".
ReplyDeleteThere is a movement of activists and other Leftists who believe that 9/11 was an inside job plotted by the US government to justify what has become a 6-year occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not agree with this belief but there is something to be said about the convenience of such an attack for the US government, their interest in taking down Sadam Hussein, and the huge benefits of Middle Eastern oil that was what really motivated them into the "War on Terror". The excuse that the US government went into Iraq to protect our national security is just another piece of rhetoric used to distract US citizens into a blatant hatred and fear of Muslims as the new "other". "Recent events have drawn attention to the presence of Muslims in the US and present a quandary for the American public. On the one hand the current the current Bush Administration conducts, and the public overwhelmingly supports, a global war on terror aimed at eradicating the elusive (terrorist) brown-skinned enemy. At the same time it remained fundamental in a democratic state that Muslim persons "at home" be treated fairly, in accordance with the rule of the law" (Moore 32). Moore includes in her article a chart of statistic compiled in 2001, after looking at this chart, it is obvious that their is a deficit between the number of times "general Americans" are subject to wiretapping, warrant less searches, being held in internment camps, indefinite detention without warning and being ethnically profiled. 9/11 legislation has deprived all Americans of fundamental constitutional rights and as Moore's chart shows is an intentional systematic disenfranchisement of Muslim Americans based on their race and religion.
--
After September 11, 2001 I noticed a huge change in National Security. These changes actually made me feel much safer. When the events of 9/11 occured I lost my sense of security because I was constantly scared of what would happen next. The steps the government took toward a safer country allowed me to walk outside and sleep at night without intense fear. I believe that the Patriot Act contributes tremendously to our safety. The fact that the government is allowed to listen to conversations and read information sent over the internet does not bother me because I know that as long as I am not putting anyone in danger then, they do not care much about what I say. People should look at it through this perspective, if they are not doing anything illegal then they have nothing to worry about.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I support the Patriot Act, I agree with Nick, it definitely has its flaws. In "Protecting the Common Good: Technology, Objectivity, and Privacy", this flaw also stood out to me "significantly expands law enforcement's authority to invade privacy without meaningful judicial oversight" (Nelson,70). Law enforcement should have regulations. What is okay to do with some individuals does not mean good for all. Law enforces should have the green light invade privacy only on suspected subjects when they are in question and approved my the court.
It is virtually impossible to please an entire country. On the one hand, many Americans complain that the USA PATRIOT Act is simply an excuse for law enforcement agencies to invade their privacy. On the other hand, if the government were to take no steps to improve national security, Americans would go crazy- to say the least. As much as concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act may be true, they are also quite perverse. How else can law enforcement authorities be efficient in their strife? I believe that attacks cannot be prevented unless there is room for prevention. Infringing on individual privacy is a must if we want to ensure our own protection.
ReplyDeleteWith the boom in technology evident today, preservation of safety has become even harder to maintain. A mere phone call or text message can signal the bombing of an entire town. These very phone calls and text messages can also tip off authorities and prevent the brunt of the damage. Unless one is a terrorist, what does one have to hide? According to Kathleen Moore’s survey, only 38.6% of general Americans strongly agree to increased wiretapping. Why is a regular citizen’s privacy so important? If the authorities want to sit and listen to me explain a sexual experience to my sister over the phone, then by all means let them! No harm; no foul. Citizens need stop being so arrogant and allow reasonable intrusion of their privacy so that national security may have a chance at being preserved. We have to accept that as much as our newest technology may be beneficial, it is also very dangerous.
Some argue about warrantless investigations. Nick is right about the need for regulation in the USA PATRIOT Act. I empathize with innocent victims of warrantless search. Government should implement some sort of compensation for individuals whose belongings were destroyed in an unsuccessful search. This not only puts some ease on the percentage of the population opposed to random searches, but trains law enforcement agencies to use their privileges sparingly as well. Otherwise, I think that the complaints about section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act as stated in Nelson’s article are simply irrational.
As for limiting surveillance to only Muslims or Arabs, I am totally opposed. Individuals of all races should be subject to search. Since, we are all humans, we are all capable of invading national security. Targeting only Muslims and Arabs is just as unethical as allowing a young white man to sit comfortably on a bus while an old colored lady is forced to stand. Muslim or general American, we should be in this together.
I am sure that we can all agree on a desire for national security, especially after the events of 9/11. Thus, we all need to make sacrifices as a whole to achieve it.
The patriot ACT reads “To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” (H.R. 3162)After the tragic 9/11 events congress quickly pass the USA PATRIOT act as to way to protect the people. The only thing that worries me is how quickly congress approves it and how much power the government gained over the people. Only time will tell how big time us the people got screw.
ReplyDeleteAs of TODAY I must agree with some of the legislation in the USA PATRIOT act, for example the Facelt and Carnivore surveillance software (Nelson 69). The FaceIt basically store your picture like any other ID center. Carnivore is a little trickier therefore people could feel a big invasion of privacy. “Carnivore is an email... [...]…targeted user’s electronic communications” (Nelson 70). Carnivore basically scans emails for sensitive information that could post a threat. People might not agree with “carnivore” scanning their personal emails to friends and family. But why get angry if there is nothing to hide? Unless your secretly planning to commit a terrorist act. I guess it just human nature that we don’t like other people digging into our private life especially the government because they have power over you.
But wait carnivore also scans for child pornography, serious fraud and other felonies, why is that part of the USA PATRIOT act, those child pornography count as terrorist act? I’m not saying that isn’t a good thing but it kind of something too random to be found in an act that main objective is “To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world” (H.R 3162)
After 9/11, our country was in a state of paranoia. The government became so involved with national security. I agree with the post 9/11 legislation and the Patriot Act. I think that it was good that the government took a huge step in trying to prevent other events like 9/11 from happening.
ReplyDeleteThe Patriot Act has some sections that I think are very crucial to the security of this nation. Section 216 of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement officers to access electronic communications by just proving to a judge that the records of that person’s electronic activities are important to a criminal investigation (Nelson 3). I think that is important because it can help investigators find those who can pose a threat to our nation’s security. This section also allows law enforcement to record and review all the internet sites a person had gone to. This search is not limited to national security investigations (Nelson 3). This is where I think that the Patriot Act has its flaws. I think that going searching beyond what is a matter of national of security is a major invasion of privacy. The act also expands the use of secret searches. A person would usually be notified if law enforcement is going to conduct a search but if the court finds that there is a reason to believe that notification would affect the investigation, notification would be delayed (Nelson 3). I believe this is completely unfair. I think that when a search is conducted that the person should be notified. I think that they should receive a warrant, telling them what they are looking for. After all, the fourth amendment is all about search and seizure. There are exceptions to this amendment, such as extingent circumstances and an officer in danger, but there is no exception that delays notifying the person that there will be a search.
I do agree that this post 9/11 legislation and Patriot Act has components that are great but it also has major flaws, that I feel go against our natural rights.
Re: Sam
ReplyDelete“But why get angry if there is nothing to hide?” The reason to get angry is because maybe one day we will have something to hide. Just because some of the things we do and say now are not illegal, doesn’t mean they will always stay that way. If we provide the tools for abuse, eventually someone is going to come along and abuse them. Right now we have a government who does allow us to our have our own opinions, but as history has shown us again and again power will be abused. Corrupt people in the right positions have always exploited the law to stay in power. Just because this is America does not mean that men like that don’t exist here. People abuse power all the time for personal gain. Nixon, Alberto Gonzalez, Joseph McCarthy , all of Warren G. Harding’s cabinet, the mayors of many New Jersey cities and countless other examples from US history show time and time again that in the United States exists corrupt peoples willing to abuse their current privileges. So why give them more powers to abuse? Once they enter into the cycle of abusing power why would they stop? It can only create a succession into a tyrannical society where we all will have something to hide. You wrote only time will tell us whether we got screwed or not, but why wait for historians of the future to tell us that? Why not just make sure now that we don’t get screwed now? Safeguard against future abuses now.
I think I am still a bit undecided when it come to the USA Patriot Act. For me there are two different ways of looking at it. I think I’m for it because when it comes to the safety of the people of our nation all precautions should be taken. The lives of our people are of utmost importance. A life has no price and we must protect them, but at the same time there is a slight down side. The down side to this act I would say it the fear it strikes in the people. Before September eleventh people were at ease with their lives and then came along a catastrophic attack on our country that shook people up. People had to grieve and were afraid what might happen in the future. Then when the Patriot Act was put into effect, people felt more secure but very afraid at the same time. It made things even more real that something else might happen. It made people a bit afraid to live their lives because of the invasion of privacy, that you yourself can be accused or mistaken for a terrorist. I think the fear extends beyond this though, people today don’t mind this act that was passed because you don’t feel it effecting your everyday life but it’s the thought that if they can impose on your privacy to this extent what else can they do. After September eleventh certain people were discriminated against and in turn made the Muslims no longer apart of us but seen as outsiders. Certain people that others saw as friends were now possibly the enemy and that was a scary feeling. Like said in A Part of US or Apart From US? (Muslims as “Others” pg 7) “Recent events have drawn attention to the presence of Muslims in the US and present quandary for the American public.” I do believe I am more for the USA Patriot Act but it still seems like something scary that the country is still getting used to.
ReplyDeleteSeemingly, any and all post-9/11 legislation is a direct result of the immediate and drastic shift in the general cultural milieu of American society. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the level and intensity of patriotic sentiment in the United States expanded greatly, on both personal, communal, and national scales. In this, it is difficult to support any arguments discrediting the USA PATRIOT Act because the evident widespread feeling of unity, and apparent desire for revenge, by any means necessary. However, I find it difficult to either praise or condemn the aforementioned legislation, due to the fact that it violates rights that seem to have served as a backbone, as well as a point of pride in regards to American government and society, for over two hundred years.
ReplyDeleteLisa Nelson argues that the post-9/11 legislation "may pose a devastating blow to the balance of individual privacy and common good that is essential to the preservation of freedom," thus summing up any and all arguments opposing the clauses of the PATRIOT Act. Also, in this, Nelson poses a clear and legitimate argument, essentially posing the question: How can a government claim to preserve basic freedoms if it forces citizens to relinquish basic rights and said freedoms? While prior to September 11, 2001 this idea would most likely been widely supported, it, it is easily juxtaposed and often overpowered by the sentiment presented in the post-9/11, terror-crazed world. Nelson exemplifies this fact in saying: "Post-September 11, the rhetoric of common good is more persuasive than claims of individual privacy and freedom in public policy making...." So, Nelson presents an understanding of her opponents points of argument. She also remains true to her position, by claiming that this argument could "potentially skew the balance necessary to preserve democratic freedoms." Even still, the intensity of the "pro-PATRIOT" argument seems to out-weigh that of the preservation of freedom. I feel that Nelson further distances herself from her stance on the matter in demonstrating an understanding that September 11 "created a fear of the invisible and the constant threat of terrorism," the remedy of this fear being the installation of new technologies. It is this idea, and fear, of which the government took advantage in order to not only pass, but provide reasoning for their new legislation. After all, what does an invasion of privacy matter if it in turn promises "safety and protection of the innocent"?
Thus, while I find it difficult to "choose sides" in this apparent battle for freedom, I find myself leaning in support of the USA PATRIOT Act. However, the reasoning behind this fact is not necessarily because I completely agree with the points of this legislation, but because it is more logical. We must understand that the events of September 11, 2001 truly and severely altered the state of American society. Measure such as those taken on 9/11 often call for drastic change, and that is in fact what took place. In short, the arguments in support of post-9/11 legislation are seemingly more structured and profound than those that chastise the PATRIOT Act, and thus the former seems more approriate.
While the USA PATRIOT Act may help protect our national security, the extent to which it does that is unclear to us, the people who may unwittingly be surveiled upon by the government. The purpose of the legislation is to quash terror threats, but it gives law enforcement agencies the ability to spy on American citizens who pose no immediate threat to our national security. Almost everyone has 'nothing to hide' (Re: Half of you), so what does the federal government have to gain by tapping our calls and tracking our movements without evidence or cause in the name of national security? If they suspect a threat, the government should be able to back it up with evidence before violating our constitutional rights -- the very thing they exist to protect.
ReplyDeletedo believe that the country needs to be protected I agree that the requirements for certain government and judicial actions need to be revised. Many parts of the Patriot Act take away the rights of citizens. It does not matter if they are guilty or not, as Americans we are given certain rights. In A Part of US or Apart From US questions of whether and individuals rights should be sacrificed for the benefit of all come up. If certain liberties keep being taken away from the individual, then more and more individuals will have less and less rights. In the end it will not just be a select few who are being negatively affected but it will be the all. The current reforms which require more evidence to take away certain liberties do seem a bit more reasonable, however, as ACLU Attorney Ben Wizner says in the article Obama Toughens State Secrets Privilege "These reforms, even if they're meaningful, will last no longer than the Obama administration,". I believe that the process to be able to wiretap and use other forms of investigation that essentially restrict civil liberties should require more evidence and less of the government officials taking advantage of current laws.
ReplyDeleteThe USA patriot Act expands law enforcements allowing them to invade one's privacy without a fair enough reason. I personally believe that this is unjust and excessive. This act does have some benefits toward protecting our country but it does not override individual privacy.As Lisa Nelson states in her article "A search conducted without a warrant and reasonable cause is [...] unreasonable". This statement informs us that we should enhance preservation of freedom rather than disregard it. If people accept this act then eventually the government will expand the use of secret searches and individual privacy will fade away. People have a right to their own beliefs. They shouldnt be blamed for what they believe.Government should find alternate ways to serve the common good rather than invading people's privacy. Since september 11, 2001, laws have changed leading to little indidual privacy. I strongly believe people have a right to preserve their freedom and shouldnt be exposed.
ReplyDeleteRe: Sarah G.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I understand your wayward stance on the USA PATRIOT Act, I wish that you were more devoted to one point. You say that you “think” you are more for the Patriot Act, yet there seems to be a greater focus on why you believe people oppose it. You talk about people being “afraid to live their own lives” and the fear of being “mistakenly accused of being a terrorist”. You even go further to say that maybe their skepticisms of the act may arise from their qualms about the power of the authorities.
I agree that both sides have significant pros and cons. However, you simply have to ponder on whether privacy is worth risking over safety. If all Americans could take the time to answer this plain question, this issue would be no longer be an issue. What person in their right mind would rather risk the safety of themselves and their family in exchange for a few private phone calls and emails? We can then be sure that those individuals who still oppose the act even after considering this question are definitely hiding something worth looking into.
Perhaps you should have cited a bit of textual evidence to support you main point. Even if your motion only goes to an extent, greater emphasis should be placed on your preference for the USA PATRIOT Act. You may have liked to use quotations such as: “Both Facelt and Carnivore technology seem to be unobtrusive in their invasion of the realm of individual privacy”(Nelson 3). Even better, you could have cited other quotes from Nelson to refute your points about people scared of being mistaken for terrorists by reassuring that Facelts involves a “Verification mode” which allows for “identity [to be] verified”. This way you can capture your readers whether they agree or disagree. If you basically go both ways, less enthusiasm would be involved while reading.
Good going on the support you gave on your points about the Muslim issue though!
I wish I had given myself some of this advice as well!
PART ONE
ReplyDeleteIn reading through your responses I have found much excitement and well-stated, informed opinion. But I need to 'pick' on a few of you for sake of further discussion.
In response to Tricia, Kevin, and Adam -- I have found that you each offer compelling statements. Tricia says, "I believe that attacks cannot be prevented unless there is room for prevention. Infringing on individual privacy is a must if we want to ensure our own protection." Indeed, this is true. How can protection occur if there isn't "room"? Which is another way of saying legislation requiring some level of "infringement" upon our privacy need be passed into law. Tricia also states, "Citizens need to stop being so arrogant and allow reasonable intrusion of their privacy so that national security may have a chance at being preserved. We have to accept that as much as our newest technology may be beneficial, it is also very dangerous." Here Tricia is basically claiming that we absolutely need to sacrifice some of our privacy, within reason (and, who defines this?), in return for the greater security of ourselves, and all. Perhaps a reasonable sacrifice is anonymity over the technological interfaces we interact with on a daily basis, as information is so readily available and so easily exchanged and in such multitude… yes, Tricia, “it is also very dangerous”!
Yet, another piece of this issues lies deeper perhaps… the infringement (the application of the law) on individual privacy, according to Nelson, is not always consistent with the doctrines of American society and ideology. Kevin is apt to point out that "Nelson poses a clear and legitimate argument, essentially posing the question: How can a government claim to preserve basic freedoms if it forces citizens to relinquish basic rights and said freedoms?" Indeed, this too is a question worth entertaining for we are not only relinquishing our rights, but we are contradicting our founding virtues. Nelson points out that our government, "whose premise is the protection of individual safety and property, and whose purpose is not to promote a set of virtues, must tolerate individual behavior so long as it does not violate the safety and property of other individuals" (5). Nelson’s argument above highlights the very fact that such alterations in legislation and law-enforcement surveillance post-9/11 could promote a set of virtues via the very act of the supposed protection. This agenda-promotion is accomplished with the use of specific rhetoric, one which “encourages us to believe that the preservation of freedom and the safety of the common good requires our universal acquiescence to technological invasions of privacy” (Nelson 6).
PART TWO
ReplyDeleteAnother question worth asking, and one that has been offered in different ways by different students, is the following: “why give them [the government] more powers to abuse? Once they enter into the cycle of abusing power why would they stop?" (Adam). I think that Adam is getting at something which we can all, at least, sympathize with... a distrust, or general skepticism, of those in power. Sam really nails this one: "I guess it’s just human nature that we don’t like other people digging into our private life especially the government because they have power over you." Adam offers further insight into this notion when he continues, "Just because some of the things we do and say now are not illegal, doesn’t mean they will always stay that way. If we provide the tools for abuse, eventually someone is going to come along and abuse them.” Is it just human nature to abuse power when given it? Is the present paragraph’s discussion blindly assuming that there is a lack of benevolent intentions in the world, especially by those in the position of enacting such benevolence? Or is it getting at the true possibility of an Orwellian state?
Makaya also shares the sentiment above when she states, "The current reforms which require more evidence to take away certain liberties do seem a bit more reasonable, however, as ACLU Attorney Ben Wizner says in the article Obama Toughens State Secrets Privilege ‘These reforms, even if they're meaningful, will last no longer than the Obama administration.’ I believe that the process to be able to wiretap and use other forms of investigation that essentially restrict civil liberties should require more evidence and less of the government officials taking advantage of current laws." While these feelings above are well-placed, Taylor, the author of the third article in this Segment, complicates your opinions when he writes, “Careful new legislation could make these powers more flexible and useful while simultaneously setting boundaries to minimize overuse and abuse” (13). While this is true, has there been any agency or committee created and assigned to overseeing that these new laws are not abused? Is not the very language of the Patriot Act and similar legislation written to skew the definitions of use v. abuse (cf. Nelson p.3, column two). As Shapiro informs us, in such cases where the boundary is placed into question, or even brought before a court of law "the government is almost always guaranteed success […], because the law as written presumes the government is correct when it claims business records are relevant to an investigation.”
Regardless, I must return to my original point from my first posting in this thread, a point that I have reiterated here… the one commonality between these articles thus far is that they each claim that a specific rhetoric has been utilized to affect change in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of our government. Moreover, it has altered the way in which we perceive our sense of freedom, entitlement to security, and the means by which the protection of our rights is achieved and maintained.
Re: Sarah G
ReplyDeleteSarah didn’t fully choose a camp when it came to her position on Post-9/11 legislation and the USA Patriot act. She spoke about how the lives of citizens are the most important however, that post-9/11 Muslims and Arab Americans were discriminated against and so their safety and privacy as a people was sacrificed supposedly for “the good of the many”. Even though her evidence supported her standpoint, she seemed to dance around a clear thesis. I was a little unsure of what she meant at one part of her comment, “After September eleventh certain people were discriminated against and in turn made the Muslims no longer apart of us but seen as outsiders. Certain people that others saw as friends were now possibly the enemy and that was a scary feeling” (Sarah G). Otherwise, I thought that it was interesting to see another point of view on the issue of post-9/11 legislation as a “scary” political tool that is for the most part protecting the American people.
Re: Alen Kolenovic
ReplyDeleteWhile a very interesting, and probably common camp, I believe that this argument can be put down for lack of sufficient evidence and a simple counterargument. In your statement you mention a part of an article, however you do not state the name of the article or include evidence (a direct quote). This made your argument unclear. Even if you had not included the quote I think it would have been clearer if you had used the word appeal to make it clear that these accused persons were the ones whose cases were being thrown away.
After rereading your response I thought of a counterargument that might make your side seem “un-American”. Throughout the article A Part of US or Apart From US the author Kathleen Moore begins with the very American idea of “united we stand divided we fall”. And she talks about how we should care about what happens to all Americans not just us. So a counterargument to your position would be that, even though we might not find harm in what is happening, other Americans do and have gone through many issues with the government, many who are innocent, because their rights have been violated by the government.
I do think that your overall structure was good. You had a nice introduction to kind of pull the reader in., using a cause and effect/process rhetoric. Your thesis was also clearly stated and proved/discussed throughout the paragraph. The end where you discussed what part of the government actions you did not agree with kind of through me off because it ended up replacing your conclusion, but other than that it was good.
RE:adam
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe in the use of the USA Patriot Act, I must agree that each side of the argument has its points. Although there has not been any major terrorist attacks on American soil since the passing of the Patriot Act, like Adam writes in his post, the "CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION". This means that although there has not been another attack, it doesn't mean that the Patriot Act is necessarily the reason for the lack of attacks. Many people use the argument that since there has not been any more terrorist attacks, that it must mean that the Patriot Act is working.
This point of view is very skewed and unproven.
Adam also goes on to say that "there must be some sort of check on these powers granted to encroach on our civil liberties to make sure that there are no abuses". I also agree with this point, that although the government is being given the power and encouragement by many Americans to protect us with this act, it does not mean they can abuse it without repercussions.
Re: Elizabeth
ReplyDeleteI do agree that it was very important that our government took the initiative to protect our security. I do this agree with your statement that it doesn't matter if the government is listening to phone conversations and looking at internet records. Even though you aren't doing anything wrong, you do have your right to privacy. The government shouldn't have the right to just look at whatever they want.
I agree with your second paragraph. Now that I look at it, I feel that in a way your two paragraphs contradict each other. I'm sure you didn't mean to but maybe you could have been a little clearer in what you were trying to say. Maybe you could have also elaborated a bit more on your ideas. Besides that I think the ideas you mentioned were great and I agree with the idea of restrictions on law enforcement.
After reading your post, I couldn’t quite understand what you are trying to say. “Purpose of the legislation is to […] no immediate threat to our national security.” We all know that the mean purpose of the USA PATRIOT act is “To deter and punish terrorist acts” (H.R.3162) but how do you know the government can spy on the American people in the name of national security? You also stated “Almost everyone has 'nothing to hide'” I think we can all agree that everyone has something to hide, it’s simply called privacy. If the act purpose is to stop terrorist acts why should you be worry if the government find out you are dealing marijuana. Last time I checked that is not terrorist act, do you think the government can act upon that information obtain by using the act? “Government should be able to back it up with evidence before violating our constitutional rights” how do you know our constitutional rights are getting violated? So far all you have showed us is that the USA PATRIOT act “to quash terror threats” isn’t that a good thing? Mike I know you have a good stance of the issue but we need some fancy evidence, how do I know you not making things up.
ReplyDeleteRe: Tricia
ReplyDeleteYou said that people need to stop being so arrogant and allow for reasonable intrusion. I agree with you on that point because I too believe that it is essential to preserving our nation's safety that the government has some way of keeping tabs on us. But I can't help but think back on an instance when a man was falsely accused to conspiring to aid a certain terrorist group. He was a man of the Islam religion and he was proven not guilty but only after being arrested by the FBI. This is a possible outcome for all Muslim Americans who are suspect to reasonable intrusion especially with the technology that we have today. I honestly don't know what has to be changed in order to keep these kinds of incidents from occurring. I'll admit that that profiling people based on their ethnicity or religion or political views, despite being completely unethical, may be necessary when picking out the criminals and terrorists from society. Anyway, my point is that there will be times when the government makes controversial decisions or actions that will ultimately benefit our national security. But it is crucial that in the process of protecting its citizens that the government does not endanger its citizens as well.
Re: Cendy & Izzy
ReplyDeleteCendy, I didn't mean to contradict myself. In my first paragraph I took my stance, which is for the Patriot Act. And in my second paragraph I explain that the Act has many flaws which end up oppressing the people at home.
Izzy, after reading your comment and reading the article I chose to write my paper on Bush's Wars and the State of Civil Liberties, my point of view towards the Patriot Act changed drastically. I began to realize that U.S. agencies took advantage of the panic that followed the attacks of September 11 to justify the need for the Patriot Act. And Congress only passed it so quickly because they wanted people to believe that they were doing everything in their power to protect the country. They also did not want to be blamed for any attacks that occurred in the process of passing the Act. My question is, did the U.S. pass the Patriot Act for the people?
Re:Izzy
ReplyDeleteI agree with Izzy on her views toward the Patriot Act because they are more sensible than the others. Most of everyone else's opinions are a bit naive. That is not to say that I blame people for their naivete, the magnitude of the event of september 11th was frightening to every one. Still it is not an excuse for us to loose our traditional protectiveness of every American's civil rights. Letting the government interfere with American's rights may negatively effect all Americans.
Izzy's point about John Locke's social contract theory is ironic because the Patriot Act is the exact opposite of what Enlightenment thinkers worked so hard to demonstrate. The government is allowed the priveledge to govern the people with the understanding that their civil rights are always protected or those in power loose their positions. The Patriot Act asks citezens to pay with their freedoms for "life, liberty, and property"-things that are supposed to be our "natural rights". Besides the fact as Izzy pointed out, that "9/11 legislation has deprived all Americans as fundamental constitutional rights," it has also caused "disenfranchisement of Muslim Americans." which threaten the social cohesion that Americans have worked so hard to maintain.
edit: my Re was for Mike
ReplyDelete