Argumentative Essay On National Security

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.

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

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 need to protect National Security is far more important than individual privacy. The greatest part of living in the United States of America is the freedom that we have. That freedom and the right to live freely is protected by various government agencies. From time to time, the privacy a person has may have to be invaded to guarantee the security of the country and other citizens. Everyone has the right to not have their life controlled by the government, but it has the right to make sure that citizens are not doing anything to threaten the security of

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

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?

When the colonist were drafting the constitution they couldn’t have imagined the tremendous growth we have achieved today. With innovation comes conflict. Many citizens feel the United States gives an illusion of freedom. Today the biggest conflicts are centered on basic rights spelled out in the constitution. It’s no secret the National Association of Surveillance illegally obtains information from the electronic devices of United States citizens. The actions of the NSA violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment rights. The NSA’s use of information impedes on the first amendment in terms of freedom of press. For a journalist the source is the key, and the key stays confidential. With the NSA collecting digital trails there is a higher risk for whistle blowers to be charged with criminal act or even assassinated. The courts stand by the NSA, for

It has been more than seventy years since the release of George Orwell’s 1984, a novel that imparts a lesson on the consequences of government overreach. However, today that novel reads like an exposé of government surveillance. Privacy and national security are two ideas competing for value on a balance; if one is more highly valued, the other carries less weight. Government desire to bolster national security by spying on its own citizens-- even the law abiding ones-- is what leads to the inverse relationship between civil liberties and security. In times of a perceived threat to the nation, national security becomes highly prized and people lose privacy. One case is terrorist attacks. 9/11 caused an understandable kneejerk reaction in Americans to bolster protection. Some of the the measures taken were observable, like greater security at airports, but others attempted to increase national security in a more intrusive way. Privacy should be more highly valued than national security, and America has reached a point where that is no longer true.

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.

In 1787, the constitution was born. The constitution has been America’s guideline to the American way of life. Our US constitution has many points in it to protect America and it’s people from an overpowered government, our economy, and ourselves. The only thing the constitution doesn’t directly give us, is our right to privacy, and our right to privacy has been a big concern lately courtesy of the National Security Agency (NSA).(#7) Although our constitution doesn’t necessarily cover the privacy topic, it does suggest that privacy is a given right. Some people say that the right to privacy was so obvious, that our founding fathers didn’t even feel the need to make a point about it.(#9) It also didn’t help

The rights of the people in America should not be infringed upon because these rights are guaranteed. And if abused, it not only infringes the rights of the people, but also diminishes the moral code of citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the civil rights that have protected people from the government now seem like they are being taken away from the government itself. The government has given itself the privilege to tap our phones, read and scan emails, access bank accounts, invade homes, and detain someone indefinitely. All of this is happening without any prior legal courses of action or our knowledge. This right to privacy, a fundamental liberty that is implied by the fourth amendment in the U.S. constitution, continues to be infringed upon by the government.

The balance between National security and civil liberties has been an issue ever since September 11th 2001. That act of terror was the beginning of the Government changing laws and civil liberties for the protection of the United States against act of terrors. Many people think that the Government is going way too far and others believe that we are doing the right thing to keep us safe. In all honesty I see a huge fluctuation in decisions as the years go by. “In a poll conducted in 2011, shortly before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 40% said that “in order to curb terrorism in this country it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties,” while 54% said it would not. A decade earlier, in the aftermath of 9/11 and

Since the attacks on September 11th, 2001, intelligence activities has been one of the most controversial issues facing this country with one of the most controversial being the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Created in November of 2002 and concepted just two weeks after the attacks, the DHS focuses in five goals; prevent terrorism and enhance security, secure and manage the borders, enforce and administer immigration laws, safeguard and secure cyberspace,

This nation was born it was created to fight for what was right for its people and provide the American people with proper security, but now with modern law and questionable Constitutional guidelines it has become more of a cry of governmental rule rather then freedom. When the Constitution was written it was to correct the wrongs of the British and the birth of a new nation. However, it seems that the United States and their citizens are slowly returning to the tyranny they once fought. According to the article Why the NSA Data Seizures are Unconstitutional, the American peoples information should remain private and unlike the British when taking documents without reason. This modern era is repeating history and is collecting data on its people with no reason other than a nation’s security (Barnett, 2015). Now with