National Security v. Civil Liberties (Raby)

National Security v. Civil Liberties

National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Dylan Webb -
Number of replies: 6

1) I feel that the goverment has the right to do as they wish. The fact that they use the Patriot Act to help keep America safe, is their call. We as Americans had agreed to this when the U.S. Constitution was signed and we were declared a free country. If the goverment has to invade our privacy in order to keep the people of America safe, then kudos to them.

2) "Allows law enforcement to use surveillance against more crimes of terror." Is the first part of the Patriot Act. This basically means that the goverment is allowed to use surveillance to be able to understand the crimes of terror, and find out who is behind the act of Terrorism.

In reply to Dylan Webb

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Courtney Gillis -

I don't agree with your statement regarding that the government has the right to do as they wish. I understand that the Declaration of Independence was signed to free them from England, but the founding fathers didn't intend for the government to be huge. They were afraid of that. I do agree with you about the Patriot Act though. I believe it was created to protect the American people and that includes surveillance and investigation, as you said.

In reply to Dylan Webb

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Matthias Hoffmann -

You are the man!! You understand what the U.S. Constitution and the powers it gave to our government. It is the government's job to protect the people. A few right do have to be given uop but everyone is protected from severe threats.

In reply to Dylan Webb

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Nicole Kurdziel -

I agree that the Patriot Act helps keep Americans safe. If we have to give up a few rights to be safe, then that's only fair. But I feel that the Constitution was created so Americans could keep their civil liberties - not give them up. The only real problem I have with the Patriot Act is that it doesn't give a specific set of rules for the government to follow. If we (as citizens) have to have rules, shouldn't the government have to have them too?

In reply to Dylan Webb

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Kelsey Griffin -

I'd have to disagree with you. A government that does whatever they want is not ideal for America. Our founders constructed our constitution in a fashion that encourages a democracy, and a government that runs wild is not a democracy, it might as well be a dictatorship. I do agree with your statement that the government needs to do what they feel is necessary in order to protect us.

In reply to Dylan Webb

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Crystal Hurmiz -

I dont think that the government should do as they wish. The reason is because they could make a mistake and it could effect us greatly. Also they could get to much power which can cause chaos.

In reply to Dylan Webb

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Anarida Delaj -

The government does not have the right to do as they wish. Again, this is where the line is drawn! Just because people are governmental officials does not give them the power to do whatever they feel like it. If our privacy is intruded against the law, then we have the right to sue. The use of the Patriot Act to keep America safe is not just "their call," it is also the citizens call. There wouldn't be any representatives if we didn't choose them to be there to protect us. If those that WE employ are betraying us, then they are becoming criminals and last time anyone checed, that is STILL illegal. Also, we didn't agree to our privacy being invaded (refering to your statement "We as Americans had agreed to this when the U.S. Constitution was signed ...). In fact, the U.S. Constitution gives us rights such as the fourth amendment which states that there cannot be an unreasonable search. All of these laws are in place to protect us, but if the government is in fact using them to their advantage just so they can collect millions of data on innocent people, (for no reason at all), then we need to recheck our priorities as a country.