National Security v. Civil Liberties (Raby)

National security v. Civil libertis

National security v. Civil libertis

by Dalton Wolgast -
Number of replies: 5

I agree with the USA Patriot act. the benifits exceed the downfalls. They may be invading your privacy, but I would rather had my files and info looked through than be dead from a terrorist attack. It is their to look for terrorist activity and to protect and secure our safety. If my personal info about hotels and text messages and whatever, than it has to be violated to possibly save lives then its ok. I would rather the terrorist to be stopped, than worry about who is looking through my files

In reply to Dalton Wolgast

Re: National security v. Civil libertis

by Jennifer Spino -
I agree, and they are not going to care about your calls unless you say one of the key words that they listen for, if you die in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented wouldn't you rather have had been saved with them looking into your life a little bit.
In reply to Dalton Wolgast

Re: National security v. Civil libertis

by Alayna Zaydel -
I agree. If you're not a terrorist, you don't have anything to worry about, and you can't take it back once people die from a nuclear bomb, or a suicide plane, or anything. It's better to give up privacy to prevent something like that.
In reply to Dalton Wolgast

Re: National security v. Civil libertis

by Joshua Buzle -
i agree with you because if you have nothing to hide it shouldent matter if they listen in on a phone call
In reply to Dalton Wolgast

Re: National security v. Civil libertis

by Romel Wright -
you have a point if you dont have any terroist back ground then you shouldnt be worried what they going to do but its still uncostitutional at the same time.
In reply to Dalton Wolgast

Re: National security v. Civil libertis

by Christina Eiben -
i agree with you. why should we care if its going to protect our overall safety?