National Security v. Civil Liberties (Raby)

National Security v. Civil Liberties

National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Logann Sade -
Number of replies: 9

I agree with the statement because it is the governments job to protect the people and their matters of security.It is the job and duties of the executive branch to carry out and enforce the laws of the gvernment. If they do not protect the rights of their people those laws can be taken away by other government officals. The Patriot Act provided to care for the terrorism attacks and electronic survallences. Government is able to enable any rights that they want because they are in control. 

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Courtney Gillis -

I also agree that the governments job is to protect people and that the Act was made to help the government protect people, but maybe the government has too much control and took their actions to far. I think that their actions violated people's civil liberties.

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Sabrina Holbrook -

I agree. People just want something to complain about even though the goverment is doing everything to keep us safe.

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Nicole Kurdziel -

Although I agree with the statement about protecting citizens being the government's job, I have to say that maybe the government shouldn't have all the control in the situation (intercepting communications). Privacy can be violated in more ways than people can count while this takes place, but it is necessary to a degree. I feel as if the government has overstepped their boundaries in the lives of American people.

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Kelsey Griffin -

I agree with your statement about the government's job to protect people. It is important that they were given these powers. However, I don't think that the Patriot Act is justified by "the government is able to enable any rights" because they are the sole governing body. If we justify the Patriot Act with that statement, we are opening the door for a free for all in the executive branch. No good can come from an unbalanced government.

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Cayci Swisher -

I'd have to disagree with you, but you have some REALLY great points. I feel that the government has too much power over us, so much that they're "allowed" to invade our privacy and penalize our civil liberties. You're right, the Patriot Act is suppose to provide help against terrorism and electronic survallence, but they're also using that technology for things they didn't list. It's scary!:(

In reply to Cayci Swisher

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Christine Hurmiz -

I kinda disagree with you because i dont think so much on "allowed". and yes its scary being watched but at the same time its like ohhhhh i just saw you walk down a hallway :OOO so what? its for our own good  

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Anarida Delaj -

While I do agree with the fact that it is the governments job to protect its people, I don't think they just can "enable any rights they want because they are in control." Obviously the Patriot Act was placed to serve as a law that would help its people when in need. However, they cannot just abuse their powers. I don't personally believe that they have done so, but remember that if the government is acting past what the law states then they are in wrongdoing. NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW: not the president, not senators, not representatives; these people are elected by us and are supposed to do their best, but not abuse that power that we have given them. 

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Carlos Santiago -

i agree when you said its the govenment job to protect us, i feel the same way.

In reply to Logann Sade

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Marisa Tavolacci -

I agree with everything you said.  What is the point of having a government if their not going to protect us and our rights?