When analyzing “Time to Assert American Values,” readers notice many illogical fallacies presented throughout the editorial. One of the author’s most recurring fallacies is his use of ad populum. Instead of focusing on the topic at hand, the author shifts focus to American patriotism and history. For instance, the author claims that “Americans need to remember that this country was also founded by dissidents” (“Time to Assert American Values” 179). In contrast to the New York Times editorial, the author of “Rough Justice” develops thorough, complete arguments.
Debates focus on violations of civil liberties. There are also questions about the appropriateness of the Act because it was passed and signed into law without extensive review. As the United States continues to experience terror threats and attacks, it is expected that the patriot act will continue to take effect. Civil liberties throughout American history have always expanded in peacetime and contracted during emergencies and wartime. During the Civil War, the two world wars, and the Cold War, Congress, and the president restricted civil liberties, and courts deferred.
Prior to the Patriot act a search warrant was needed, after the Patriot Act a search warrant is no longer required for agents to employ surveillance “…when looking into the full range of terrorism-related crimes,” (Dept. of Justice). The Patriot Act allows federal officials to gather information for suspected terrorist activity without needing to have evidence. In addition to this, Howard Ball observed that in the seventh title of the Patriot Act information is able to be shared between federal, state, and local law enforcement (52). Banks and Tauber analyzed federal district court decisions on cases regarding the Patriot act and they found, “[T]hey [district courts] are not inclined to protect civil rights and liberties during times of domestic or international conflict.” They continue to note that judicial ideology does not affect the outcomes of these cases, that civil-libertarian interest groups make a deferential decision less likely, and that if a more conservative Senate and president are in power a deferential decision is more
Many American citizens are willing to give up a certain degree of their rights, including their own privacy, to try and keep our country safe from terrorism. No matter the reason, however, it is never justifiable to interfere on our Constitutional rights. Former President Bush eavesdropping on innocent citizens, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Freedom Act, and Japanese internment camps are all primary examples of our constitutional rights as Americans being overlooked. “The United States trampling on the Constitutional rights of its citizens to protect the nation is never justifiable.” After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1942, the United States were on their toes.
The events that occurred during 9/11 have shaped American society in monumental ways. When the planes crashed into the world trade center, the pentagon, and the remote field, it finally forced America to open their eyes. They were forced to realize the importance of the inhabitants and the Dharma (role) that we all play in this world. As said in an article, history is never concrete. From what we can tell, history always reflects the current events.
Not only does the act jeapordize these rights of citizens, but also fringes upon individual rights to privacy. At first, the government’s primary focus for the use of the act was only to protect the country from terrorists on American soil as well as future acts of terrorism that may ensue, but now, the government has used their unruly power to convict criminals who have virtually no relation to terrorism whatsoever which is clear example of governmental abuse of power. Another aspect of the Patriot Act which brings forth public fear is the fact that any individual can be kept an eye on and surveillanced. In order to obtain personal information of individuals, National Security Letters (NSL’s) are issued to federal agents without a judge’s approval. To make things worse, information acquired through NSL’s on completely innocent individuals can be kept and stored as opposed to being thrown out--a clear violation of right to privacy.
The case against Edward Snowden is strong. He acted with recklessness and possible self-serving convenience; even so, by shedding light on the invasive government actions taken to deal with terrorism, Snowden did his country a service, demanding accountability from a branch of the government that has been given free reign because of our post-9/11 fears. Still the fear persists that a society that accepts challenges to laws also insights anarchy (Leibman). This argument quickly falls flat: civil disobedience is action taken to fulfill a worthy higher principle, not just a means to benefit oneself. The intricacies of this were exposed when the acting Attorney General refused to allow the Justice Department to defend President Trump’s travel ban until its constitutionality could be affirmed.
During this period in history, Americans’ civil liberties were being taken away all in securing support for the United States entering and remaining in World War
Some people may think that the 14th amendment does a poor job of protecting people’s rights. In document five it explains how on September 11, 2001,with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, it has caused video surveillance in the United States to increase. For example the U.S has programs that use facial recognition that help match photographs of criminals faces to the criminal. Another program that we use helps prevent suicide bombers from attacking. Some people may think that prevention of terrible events reoccuring or occurring is a good thing, but using security systems everywhere may be a violation of their rights and privacy.
Freedom in the First Amendment “If you’re not going to offend somebody you don’t need the First Amendment.” -Larry Flynt. This means that if you are not going to say anything about someone out of your free will, then you don’t need the first amendment. Having the first amendment is very important to many people to having the freedom to many things in their life.
In 2001 only a little over a month after 911 The Patriot Act was passed. On the surface the act seems to be concerned with the safety of the American people; however it was reactionary, a result of the culture of fear created by America’s first experience with terrorism, a word that still holds a powerful
In this small country a terrorist attack may happen at any time and in any place. Therefore, when entering a shopping mall, hospital, or school, the security guard asks to search the contents of your bag. We have never thought that it was an encroachment on our freedom or invasion of privacy because in these circumstances it was necessary for our protection. Obviously, a government has to protect the lives of its citizens. Nowadays, many people in the United States spend too much time discussing the balance between security and liberty.
Individual rights should not be sacrificed in the name of national security because often freedoms are violated, equality is lost, and discrimination breeds and these are not worthy
Civil liberties are rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution that the government cannot interfere with, however, in the name of national security, they do. The government sometimes finds it necessary for Americans to give up some of their basic rights to keep the nation protected, but many people find this unnecessary. A law-abiding citizen’s extremely personal information should not be essential to finding terroristic threats within this society. Under no circumstances should an American citizen’s civil liberties be violated in a time of war or crisis, because those are assured rights that are most valuable to their freedom during national conflicts.
True freedom is without obstruction or restraint yet there are ways in which freedom leads to restraint. Many advances and opportunities gave rise during 1865 and 1910 in America along with it came a sense of freedom for the people who migrated or resigned there. People like Jurgis had the freedom to work, earned money, and own a home of their own, but in all reality they were not free but trapped by the very things that they had the freedom to obtain. Industrialization was a big thing in The United States and everyone wanted to be part of it immigrants like Jurgis would leave their home lands and travel to the city where there was said to be an abundance of jobs and opportunities.
