National Security v. Civil Liberties (Raby)

National Security v. Civil LIberties

National Security v. Civil LIberties

by Kelsey Griffin -
Number of replies: 4

I agree with this statement. I believe that with the terrorist attacks we have seen in play in the more recent years, that our safety is held at high stakes. The extermist groups trying to tear down the government and nation as a whole are smarter than most. They stop at nothing, and it is important that government agencies are able to investigate and react quickly, at any cost. We either put our safety and livelihood at stake, or our privacy. I'm positive that in the event of terrorist attacks, you'd rather the government be able to adequately protect then have to jump through hoops to save you. I do think that there should be some type of monitoring for these government affairs, because we as Americans still have the rights the constitutiion gave us, and they should not be violated. After reading the Patriot Act, I can see where people might be scared. From what I comrehend, it appears to me that all the powers the government agencies got from this were mostly given to them before the act was passed in to law, but now everything can be done quicker. I really like that the statute of limitations in terrorist cases can be meddled with, because these people know how to get under the radar quickly. I would hate to see a person like that get away because of something like the statute of limitations. Since 9/11 we have not had a huge crisis with terrorists to that magnitude, so the Patriot Act seems like it is doing exactly what it was meant to do: protect our homefront. And for that reason, this act is alright in my book.

In reply to Kelsey Griffin

Re: National Security v. Civil LIberties

by Matthias Hoffmann -

I totally agree with you!! In recent years terrorist attacks happen more frequently and the government needs protect the people because the threats are very dangerous. There should be a way the people can check the government to make sure they are using their powers correctly. 

In reply to Kelsey Griffin

Re: National Security v. Civil LIberties

by Hunter Iuliano -

i couldnt have said it better myself kelsey. i dont understand how someone could sit there and say "id rather have my privacy than thouands of people dead"... if we had this act put in place before  9/11, it may have been prevented, and all the innocent people in New York, Washington D.C. , and the planes could have been saved. i dont care if they want to screen my calls to see if im a terrorist... because im not... i have nothing to hide, and they're not gonna find anything. thats what most people dont understand.

In reply to Hunter Iuliano

Re: National Security v. Civil LIberties

by Carlos Santiago -

i completely agree with you kels, i would rather feel violated then people dying. 

In reply to Kelsey Griffin

Re: National Security v. Civil LIberties

by Marisa Tavolacci -

I agree Kelsey i think investigation is crucial to keep us safe.  Some people disagree and say that it invades our privacy, but i think the government needs to know whats going on in our lives sometimes in order to provide the proper protection.