Analysis Of The Film Unconstitutional: The War On Civil Liberties

Michael Moore’s mocking tone and sarcastic comments during Fahrenheit 9/11 displayed his clear hatred toward former president Bush. In the film, Moore makes the decision to read the Patriot Act, which was read and passed by congress, however he decides to read it out loud in a ice cream truck to the ones who already read and passed the bill. This insinuates that congress does not read or particularly care about what is signed into law. Also, Moore’s use of an ice cream truck symbolizes innocence that is soon to be lost by the

An American’s civil liberties are among some of the most important rights awarded to a citizen. After 9/11 some of those liberties were taken away by the expansion of executive power, the National Security

The threat of terrorism creates a fear that allows government agencies to subvert the United States Constitution and common morals out of the threat that they will be unable to combat terrorism without performing these rights violations. After the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001, the United States Congress passed the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act (“NSA Surveillance Programs”). This act essentially gives a blank check of domestic and foreign rights violations to the federal government, specifically the National Security Agency, as long as the violation is done in the name of fighting terrorism. Reports came out numerous times over the next decade, specifically December 2005, May 2006, and March 2012, detailing how the National Security Agency was able to stretch its powers, even beyond this liberal and controversial bill, to surveil its citizens’ private phone conversations with neither warrants nor provable suspicion of a crime taking or about to take place (“NSA Surveillance Programs”). The former of these reports was by the New York Times, which had known for nearly a year about this program but

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

On September 11th, 2001 the future of the United States changed forever. With almost 3,000 people dying from a terrorist attack that spanned the Eastern U.S., new tactics had to be created to prevent an event like this from ever happening again. Forty-five days after the attack, the USA Patriot Act was passed (Source 5). While only some Americans approved of it, the act was created to protect from terrorism across the country.

Opening: Benjamin Franklin once famously said: “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.” I hope by the end of this speech you agree with this founding father. Because, that’s right, we are talking about the USA PATRIOT Act and the idea of freedom versus security, otherwise known as Hollywood’s go-to theme for the past decade. This is how I imagine how every conversation goes in every writers’ room in LA: “Hey, Mark?” “Yeah, Steve, what do you need?” “Well, I just can’t seem to make my superhero screenplay appeal to a modern audience.” “Hmm…Have you tried setting your story against the backdrop of a society conflicted by its own unstoppable spiral into an Orwellian hellscape?”

In 2001, George W. Bush signed a law to provided tools to catch and prevent terrorism. It was called the USA Patriot Act of 2001. It was George W. Bush’s response to the terrorist attack that took place in September 11, 2001 in New York and Pentagon. The Law ensured security and safety for the citizens but it also violated individual right. The law took a lot of criticism because it violated constitutional right, and it created problems between individual right perspective and the public order advocates.

September 11, 2001 sparked many different feelings into the hearts of Americans. People sprang into action to seek revenge and protect America’s precious soils from another deadly attack by reinforcing America’s strength through her government. The men and women of Congress retaliated to the terrorist attacks by drafting and passing the USA PATRIOT Act on October 26, 2001, which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The bill was moved through Congress with amazing speed and little hesitation. After the passing, the unsuspecting citizens of America were bombarded with many new rules and regulations that

In a legislative response to the 9/11 attacks, Congress almost unanimously passed the USA Patriot Act in October 2001. This legislation rendered against the Fourth Amendment and numerous more legal protections to permit law enforcement agencies to perform thorough searches without proper warrants. Searches that ranged from evaluation of financial transactions, cellular communications, and other intrusive tactics to reduce the possibly of another terrorist attack like 9/11. Although this act provided significant results in terms of reducing the threat of terrorism, it fails in the protection of basic human rights and the Constitution. Several hundreds of people were unjustly detained within the year following the 9/11 attacks, in suspicion,

With a point of a finger and an accusation of “Terrorist,” the United States has complete jurisdiction to violate your rights under the constitution, the very same rights that were ratified in 1788 to protect US from our GOVERNMENT abusing its power. There's such a thing in existence called red flagged "Keywords" the Department of Homeland Security uses to 'prevent

The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

Torture during and after the 9/11 attacks were a debatable, many saying that it was okay due to the fact that the issue was a world wide death or life issue, others saying that it was still unconstitutional. This movie plays a part of Constitutionalism has it deals and shows the torture, an issue that is seen