Individual Rights Vs Public Order Essay

Since the 9/11 attacks, concerns about the fine line between safety and privacy have arisen. It all began after the Patriot Act was enacted by the government to protect the safety of our country. One of its most controversial sections is section 215 which allows access to records and other tangible items under FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Many Americans argue its right for the government to have access to certain personal information for the safety of the country. Others allege this goes against the fourth amendment of the constitution which states people are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. However, it does not protect against all searches and seizures, but only those that are thought unreasonable under the law.

To understand individual rights and public order there must be an understanding on what the advantages and disadvantages are. Many individuals don’t understand the power these two topics hold. They are also at times misinterpreted; some don’t now what their rights are and some think they know. On occasion some may try to abuse them when public order is in forced for example when making an arrest an officer reads you your rights, some individuals think if your rights are not read to you they may not make an arrest. This is were they feel as though their individual rights have been violated. Many are confused as to what they mean, and is why their needs to be an understanding of what the

The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).

One beautiful morning in September 2001 many people went about their day like they have before. Some off to work, or traveling for business, or to visit family, and in a blink of an eye our lives in America changed forever. We were attacked, on our own soil, not once, but four times. That fourth plane didn’t make it to its destination, thanks to the brave souls aboard that sacrificed their lives to save others. On that fateful day 2,753(NYmag) families would never be the same, as well as the rest of us that watch in disbelief. The attacks on September 11th 2001 led to something called the Patriot Act. In the days after 9/11 Congress hurried to pass a bill to give law-enforcement agencies the power to fight domestic terrorism. On October 26, President George W. Bush signed three hundred page USA Patriot Act into law (Crf.org). The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was created to prevent and catch terrorist in the United States and around the world. The contents of it has been one of great controversy in the rights of our privacy and the violation of our constitutional rights. Can we give up too much freedom to keep us safe? Where do we draw the line to keep our Country safe?

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.

The Patriot Act was established after the tragedy of September, 11, 2001 in a moment of weakness. It gave unprecedented and unnecessary powers to intelligence agencies under the wide umbrella of national security. The Patriot Act has used an “us vs them” mentality as well as pro-American propaganda to accomplish its goals. This new authority of the intelligence agencies has gone too far, is unjustified, unconstitutional, and infringes on the privacy of the American people, as well as others in the world. The Patriot Act should be weakened in order to preserve the rights of the American people and to reaffirm to the world that the U.S will not tolerate violations of human rights.

The position held by those who disagree with my view would believe that the Patriot Act is a complete and total violation of Americans rights. They would believe that this is a violation of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments. The act allows the government to get around the Fourth Amendment by allowing them to track who visits which website, and read private emails. (Johnson) Specifically, critics say that this act makes it a lot easier for the federal government to many things, such as obtain information about people, and eavesdrop on telephone conversations. Soon after the Patriot Act was accepted, many people voiced their differing opinions of it. People in civil liberties groups believed that the act took too much freedom away from the people. They believed it violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments. The 4th amendment states that searches and seizures can only take place

In the mist of America ending its wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan here in the homeland we are still be proactive in trying to alleviate terrorist threats and opportunities for terroristic activity in our backyards. When looking at the USA PATRIOT ACT that was enacted to help battle this ongoing pandemic it has come into question whether the laws of the USA PATRIOT ACT extremely broad, narrow, and overarching that they leave too much room for interpretation which in the end has led to violations of a person’s rights that they are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.

In the final analysis, I believe we have an obligation to preserve our Constitutional rights in their original form if not for ourselves then for future generations. I do not believe anyone’s rights, individually or collectively should be trampled on. As such, because the Patriot Act legislation centers on our Constitutional rights, it would be appropriate for us as a country

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to ever pass through the US Senate. Its critics use fear mongering tactics to scare people into opposition of an intrusive police state which they believe is inevitable given the government’s new powers. They consider the Act an assault on civil liberties and an invasion of the privacy of innocent American citizens. Yet the real issue is not that the government now has new powers, it’s that the American people do not trust our intelligence agencies to handle these new powers properly while still respecting their rights.

People who oppose the act ask this question “Does this act violate the Fourth Amendment? (The right giving us privacy as United States citizens). “There is an inherent opposition between governments’ requests for access to data in the context of criminal investigations, or the fight against drugs or terrorism, and the basic rights of individuals to privacy in their home or their papers.” (Gilbert 3). Basically to some up that statement there are certain times when the United States will use the act, almost like when the police get a warrant they pick the time that is best for them for their safety and our country as a whole. People who oppose this act also ask this question, is the Patriot Act just a way for the United States to listen to our lives as an excuse? What does the CIA or FBI listen for when using this law? “Contrary to press reports, the Patriot Act is not “the” U.S. law that governs the rules for access to data or communications by law enforcement and national security agencies.”(Gilbert 2). This means the U.S would have to have consent to use other countries databases for information on criminals and other activities, but this brings up a point, the United States wouldn’t give you a warning if they were watching your internet browsing or wiretapping your phone if they wanted your

Immemorial, governments and individual citizens have had to walk a thin tightrope between the two ideals. This controversy was the catalyst that sparked the first ten amendments of the Constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights and, how in addition to these rights secured by America's forefathers, a number of institutions have arisen to ensure the protection of individual rights in an increasingly complex world. In order to add balance to this equation, the criminal

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.

Individual rights guarantee people certain freedoms without the influence of different agencies. Individual rights are described in the bill of rights in the United States Constitution. Public order should take priority over individual rights, even if they concept violates the constitutional rights. Public order is required for society to survive and give the feeling of being safe from criminals . How much perspective that crime rates for growing, coupled with a believe that offenders recently went on punished or received only a judicial slap on the wrist, lead to a burgeoning emphasis on the responsibility and punishment.