Wiretapping And Spying Stop Terrorism

Recent controversy has exposed one of the most heated and long-standing debates about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless wiretapping. Although that beginning of the program conducted by the NSA is unknown, it is easily assumed that the NSA has been practicing such surveillance activities for a long time, or as long as national security has been threatened. Nevertheless, the program started well before the tragic events that unfolded on September 11, 2001, with the Bush administration directing the NSA to begin secretly surveilling conversations between U.S. citizens and suspected foreign terrorists.

In Marc Thiessen’s article “Leaks, Not the NSA Programs, Deserve Condemnation,” Thiessen discusses the NSA leaks from 2013, criticizing Edward Snowden for leaking this information to the public. He states that the criticism of the “warrantless wiretapping” of the NSA spying programs are not warranted, with the claims of violations of the Fourth Amendment being nullified by the ruling of the Smith v. Maryland case. He then list three methods of obtaining information for combating terrorism, which are interrogation, insurgency, and communication monitoring.

So my understanding of the wiretapping was included in the patriot act was because of the terrorist attacks in 9/11. They added this patriot act for it could prevent future terrorist attacks. According to npr.org "In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress approves the U.S.A. Patriot Act to improve the government's ability to stop future terrorist attacks. It includes provisions to help streamline the process of obtaining the necessary warrants to conduct eavesdropping" I think it’s a good idea but I also think its not. I think its good because that way they can catch terrorists and prevent them for doing danger to the people. But I think it’s not a good idea because they cant just wiretap people without knowing

The longer a trial takes, the more tax money is wasted. Over 10 million dollars

This is something that I feel like could have been taken care of long before it was. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that everyone has the right to a speedy and public trial and since the system is so backed up, this concept barely exists. Another thing that could have been taken care of quicker was how the guards treated the inmates.

Government Wiretapping is when the government gets access without court consent is used completely illegally Every day, Hundreds of millions of people chat exchange text messages and send picture through social sites like Facebook and you don't know whether or not the government is watching you and see everything you send out they are just invading your privacy. While it may help catch criminals (terrorist drug dealers etc) it is being used to spy on millions of people ILLEGALLY there have even been some cases of government officials choosing to spy on people they know even if they know they're innocent. Why should the government be allowed to wiretap without court consent? They are looking at innocent people's information and some cases have

The Patriots Act has become a huge part of the community and some people do not even realize it, though plenty of the time they are using this Patriots Act to defend their idea of spying on the citizens around the world. In order for the community to feel safer, they must first take away the Patriots Act due to safety issues people tend to feel less secure when they know they are being watched for their every move. People have to understand that not only is this something that is pointless, but it makes people more aware of what they send. This act will not prevent terrorism in the world, due to the amount of damage that has been done in the world they have not found terrorist by seeing whom the contact when they contact and most of the time

The Patriot Act of 2001 has in many ways changed the way that acts of terrorism and other crimes related to terrorism are handled within the Federal system. The Patriot Act in many ways unites under one law code a few different important clauses relating to tools available to federal law enforcement and also to the new more pressed penalties for terrorist acts. The entire act within itself provides law enforcement a new set of measures and procedures to combating terrorist on the financial field as well as the domestic home front. The most basic of tools that many law enforcement agencies have took advantage of were with the passing of the Patriot Act of 2001 becoming newly available to that of federal investigatory

According to Banks, the amount of prison spending has increased six times from 1983 to 2008, and “the correctional population has tripled in 25 years.” (Banks, 2013, p. 139) The United States alone holds the highest percentage of incarceration in the world. In addition to racial discrimination, and offenses targetting minorities, the biggest issue in our prison system is the fact that most of these prisoners are held in prison longer than they should in which they await for trial. It’s sad to think that as an alleged offender who requests a speedy trial does not reach his date of trial as fast as it is said to be. According to the Miami-Dade County daily jail population statistics, the longest stay of a inmate who is still awaiting trial for 1st Degree Murder in 4,358 days which is roughly 11 years and 11 months, and currently there are 103 who are waiting trial with more than 4 years length of stay in prison. Our criminal justice system seems to be quite devistating and extremely disorganized when it comes to properly giving the alleged inmates their Constitutational right to a speedy trial. The United

“It emphasizes efficiency and the capacity to catch, try, convict, and punish a high proportion of offenders; it also stresses speed and finality. (Cole & Smith, 2010). The prosecutor in this model looks at the evidence, and chances of getting a conviction. If there is a slight chance, then the state will not move forward with prosecution of the case. If there is a preponderance of evidence then the prosecution will begin bargaining with the defense, agree on a jail term, and the defendant then usually pleads guilty to the charges. This is a fast and efficient method, which saves money by keeping many trials out of court. On the other hand there is a higher likelihood that innocent people who are facing a long sentence, would plea out to a lesser sentence rather than risking getting the longer time in jail. Think about it, if you were innocent of a charge, and facing life in prison, but were offered a five-year sentence with parole, what would you do? You could simply take the time and move on, or risk a jury trial, where there is a possibility you would still be found guilty. These are the tough decisions that some innocent people have to actually face. Many people that are guilty of crimes also benefit from this system, by getting a lesser sentence. Is the cost of saving money, worth letting a guilty person back on the streets sooner? I do not believe it is worth saving the money, and feel that if you are guilty of a crime then you should

Every since 9/11, the surveillance in the United States has become stricter and of more importance. The security is more top-notch than it has ever been because of the fear a future terrorist attack striking once again. The United States government is doing this for safety issues and the protection of Americans, but many are against the whole idea of having the government spy on you and others actually agree with it.

The terrorist attack on September 11th by the Islamic group al-Qaeda prompt President Bush on October 26, 2011, to sign the Patriot Act into law with the help of Congress. This act was created to take measures to protect the citizens, by bringing in more troops and military units. Giving law enforcement more power to prevent and detect terrorism. The power to use surveillance, wiretaps and conduct investigations. This law still has citizens concern with their civil liberties and data privacy.

Rand Paul, of the Wall Street Journal states, “How many records did the NSA seize from Verizon” (Paul)? Verizon is an enormous phone company that covers more than 308 million people. All of the phone information secured in the Verizon Company, is now being monitored and viewed by the US Government, which was initially kept secret from the people, under code name PRISM (Greenwald). The information under this code name was then leaked by a former NSA worker. Unfortunately, just like the book Big Brother’s Watching, it is the U.S Government that is conducting domestic surveillance on Verizon. Companies like Verizon, can’t simply shut off the eyes the government and they also cannot protect their users, now violated, Fourth Amendment rights. The use of domestic surveillance by the American government must not be implemented, in order to prevent the violation of American’s Fourth Amendment right, to ensure privacy for the American people, and due to American’s distrustful views toward domestic surveillance and the NSA. The U.S government should not monitor its people, and should not violate their rights to privacy.

Government surveillance is made with the intent to keep American society safe, usually made in response to major terrorist attacks to prevent future terrorist attacks. After the tragic events of 9/11 the Us government took measures to prevent future terrorist attacks from happening. One major act enacted was the Patriot act.

On September 11, 2001, acts of terror inflicted upon the United States influenced the federal government to take action and draft legislation to combat new terrorist threats (Patriot Act). Unfortunately, the federal government used this opportunity to turn the new grandiloquence legislation, known as the Patriot Act, against the common interest of the American people. The Patriot Act allowed government agencies, such as the NSA, to monitor the actions and conversations of personal communications (Snowden). Furthermore, the act allowed the massive amounts of information to be stored in the NSA database, and some of that information collected passed around washington. When the American public realized the foul the government was committing, they became very upset with the federal government, and the emotions caused a tension between the American people and the federal government. Although, when the patriot act was first written, stated that its purpose was to combat terrorism.