Patriot ActEssay Preview: Patriot ActReport this essayThe United States violates people physically, and singles people out based on race or region. Airport screenings are bias based on where a traveler is going or coming from. Anyone traveling through Afghanistan, Iraq, Cube, Algeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, or Yemen will automatically be searched along with their luggage, before being allowed to bored a U.S. bound flight. The 14 countries that have been singled out to require additional screening are mostly primarily Muslim. Even though a terrorist could come from any country in the world including our own, the United States has taken a special interest in singling out these countries. By labeling these countries like we have, we have unfairly prejudged everyone who is from those countries. Many Muslims from these 14 nations feel they are being racially profiled. (Gentile 1) Also it has been long suspected that the random additional screenings the TSA is allowed to do is also bias. Without reason at certain airport security checkpoints TSA is allowed to ask any individual to undergo a random security check. Without justification many people have felt that the TSA selections for random additional screenings can be asked based on a persons race. In order to maintain airport security the government should not sacrifice our morals by singling out people based on race or religion like we have begun to do. (Airport Security Policy of Control 1)
Recently the TSA has instituted a new type of “pat-down procedure to all American airports. This new “pat-down procedure is aggressive and intrusive to all people who are subjected to go through it. The old “pat down” procedure was back handed witch only touched the person briefly and appropriately. With no proof or reason that the old back “pat-down” did not work the TSA switched to the new front hand “pat-down”. The new front hand process allows for the persons doing the touching to touch the individual inappropriately and can touch the individual almost anywhere. Anyone can be asked to do one of these new “pat-downs” randomly while going through security at any U.S. airport. A person also might be asked to do a “pat-down” for setting off the metal detectors, wearing baggy clothes, or for refusing to take of their headwear.(Gonzalez 3) In a poll from the Washington Post they found only 50% of people are opposed to the new “pat-down.(Rosen 1) There is however an alternative a person has besides doing a “pat-down” and that is to have a full body scan. A person should not have to go through an inappropriate “pat-down” just to board a flight, especial when there is not real reason on why.
Another new form of security recently instituted by the TSA is the full body scan. This new full body scan is embarrassing and degrading to people. Now every United States airport has this new body scanning machine that can take a picture of a person underneath their clothes. The camera can take a picture of a fully clothed person and make it look as if they wearing almost nothing at all.(Facts on Airport Security 1) There is still some public speculation on this machine because the TSA has not said exactly what all the machine can see but only that it can see all metallic and non metallic items a person might be concealing. People are concerned that these images of them almost naked can be saved and later looked at for non security purposes. The TSA has claimed that once the pictures are viewed they are erased afterwards, although the U.S. Marshals Services has come forward and said that more than 35,000 images have already been saved.(Rosen 3) The only alternative a person has if they do not want to take a full body scan is to have a “pat-down. In the same poll conducted by the Washington Post only 32% of people are opposed to the full body scans.(Rosen 1) No one should have to have a picture taken of them viewed naked just to board a plane.
The patriot Act enables the government to violate out civil liberties. The Patriot Act violates our 1st amendment right to freedom of speak. With the Patriot Act the government can bring legal action to anyone who speaks about helping the government obtain personal information about another individual.(Surveillance Under the USA Patriot Act 1) Lets say for example if an FBI agent had a warrant that forced a librarian to give them records on everything a person checked out of the library, the librarian would not be allowed to tell anyone what happened. This is true for many Patriot Act issued warrants that require the government to use outside sources to obtain records through different venues. Also with the Patriot Act it allows the government to monitor websites and certain book activity. Just the books and websites a person views is believed to be enough to spark the governments interest in a person.(Abramson
1) It seems to me that this Act has very little to do with the American right to freedom of speech but is almost completely limited regarding the government’s ability to interfere in citizens’ and private lives. The Patriot Act is simply an attempt to outlaw the free expression of political groups, religious groups, and others for personal, religious, economic, and political reasons. It does not protect anyone who does no such thing.(Farrell
2) So what is the legal basis for the government to use such tactics to “prohibit others” from using any of us for political purposes? While this is a basic Constitutional rights in this country, it also has very little to do with the freedom to speak or to be held accountable for. To that end the government should no longer be seeking to restrict any people from doing the things it has just arrested and imprisoning as a matter of basic constitutional rights. What the law should allow the government to do to these things is a very important issue. It should be the sole basis for any law enforcement or civil lawsuit, including when a law is applied in a lawful manner, or in criminal matters. And there will always be some who think that the Patriot Act is not that, that it is never relevant in a civil or criminal situation whatsoever, and that this Act simply bans all speech like this. And so it is by no means the sole basis on which the Patriot Act comes to be used by the government in criminal or civil proceedings. While this may seem like a legitimate right to freedom, it should not be understood primarily as being the basis for any policy or ruling which restricts how the government operates. These are the fundamental rights of citizens or individual human beings. We are all limited by our personal and individual privacy and should never be treated as nothing but part of it. In this respect the Patriot Act as it was originally drafted does not protect the rights of all Americans against government wrongdoing, it is only restricting or barring a particular group of people at the expense of others who are entitled to the same rights. These rights are only “reasonable” under normal circumstances, not “necessary” under legal theory. There is no evidence that the Patriot Act has the power to enforce a particular law or conduct, it is just a tool applied in a legal fashion. The people’s right of speech that is protected should be protected in all spheres of life, such as those that might arise out of a government action such as arrest and imprisonment and civil proceedings. This Act should be of no greater benefit than the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment under Webster’s Third and Fourth amendments.(Rice
3) But if the government has this right then by not allowing the people to speak freely or hold in contempt, and instead by blocking those in the way, then the government becomes more restrictive than the people and more effective in its attempt to restrict the expression that they have in common. The Patriot Act would be less effective because it would allow law enforcement to use those actions to keep them under their control and that they could use in criminal actions if that allowed them to do so.(Farrell
4) This goes for any person even if they do not act in violation of a constitutional right which is actually intended only for those people, it should not apply where the government seeks to violate a citizen’s right to freedom of speech. So what is the legal basis for the government to use any of our citizens against the government and its goals? If the government is the only person affected in a crime but does not want to interfere with the law in that regard then it is not really “lawful” to arrest and imprison any human being. The person might be free as long as they are not doing anything illegal or taking
1) It seems to me that this Act has very little to do with the American right to freedom of speech but is almost completely limited regarding the government’s ability to interfere in citizens’ and private lives. The Patriot Act is simply an attempt to outlaw the free expression of political groups, religious groups, and others for personal, religious, economic, and political reasons. It does not protect anyone who does no such thing.(Farrell
2) So what is the legal basis for the government to use such tactics to “prohibit others” from using any of us for political purposes? While this is a basic Constitutional rights in this country, it also has very little to do with the freedom to speak or to be held accountable for. To that end the government should no longer be seeking to restrict any people from doing the things it has just arrested and imprisoning as a matter of basic constitutional rights. What the law should allow the government to do to these things is a very important issue. It should be the sole basis for any law enforcement or civil lawsuit, including when a law is applied in a lawful manner, or in criminal matters. And there will always be some who think that the Patriot Act is not that, that it is never relevant in a civil or criminal situation whatsoever, and that this Act simply bans all speech like this. And so it is by no means the sole basis on which the Patriot Act comes to be used by the government in criminal or civil proceedings. While this may seem like a legitimate right to freedom, it should not be understood primarily as being the basis for any policy or ruling which restricts how the government operates. These are the fundamental rights of citizens or individual human beings. We are all limited by our personal and individual privacy and should never be treated as nothing but part of it. In this respect the Patriot Act as it was originally drafted does not protect the rights of all Americans against government wrongdoing, it is only restricting or barring a particular group of people at the expense of others who are entitled to the same rights. These rights are only “reasonable” under normal circumstances, not “necessary” under legal theory. There is no evidence that the Patriot Act has the power to enforce a particular law or conduct, it is just a tool applied in a legal fashion. The people’s right of speech that is protected should be protected in all spheres of life, such as those that might arise out of a government action such as arrest and imprisonment and civil proceedings. This Act should be of no greater benefit than the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment under Webster’s Third and Fourth amendments.(Rice
3) But if the government has this right then by not allowing the people to speak freely or hold in contempt, and instead by blocking those in the way, then the government becomes more restrictive than the people and more effective in its attempt to restrict the expression that they have in common. The Patriot Act would be less effective because it would allow law enforcement to use those actions to keep them under their control and that they could use in criminal actions if that allowed them to do so.(Farrell
4) This goes for any person even if they do not act in violation of a constitutional right which is actually intended only for those people, it should not apply where the government seeks to violate a citizen’s right to freedom of speech. So what is the legal basis for the government to use any of our citizens against the government and its goals? If the government is the only person affected in a crime but does not want to interfere with the law in that regard then it is not really “lawful” to arrest and imprison any human being. The person might be free as long as they are not doing anything illegal or taking
1) It seems to me that this Act has very little to do with the American right to freedom of speech but is almost completely limited regarding the government’s ability to interfere in citizens’ and private lives. The Patriot Act is simply an attempt to outlaw the free expression of political groups, religious groups, and others for personal, religious, economic, and political reasons. It does not protect anyone who does no such thing.(Farrell
2) So what is the legal basis for the government to use such tactics to “prohibit others” from using any of us for political purposes? While this is a basic Constitutional rights in this country, it also has very little to do with the freedom to speak or to be held accountable for. To that end the government should no longer be seeking to restrict any people from doing the things it has just arrested and imprisoning as a matter of basic constitutional rights. What the law should allow the government to do to these things is a very important issue. It should be the sole basis for any law enforcement or civil lawsuit, including when a law is applied in a lawful manner, or in criminal matters. And there will always be some who think that the Patriot Act is not that, that it is never relevant in a civil or criminal situation whatsoever, and that this Act simply bans all speech like this. And so it is by no means the sole basis on which the Patriot Act comes to be used by the government in criminal or civil proceedings. While this may seem like a legitimate right to freedom, it should not be understood primarily as being the basis for any policy or ruling which restricts how the government operates. These are the fundamental rights of citizens or individual human beings. We are all limited by our personal and individual privacy and should never be treated as nothing but part of it. In this respect the Patriot Act as it was originally drafted does not protect the rights of all Americans against government wrongdoing, it is only restricting or barring a particular group of people at the expense of others who are entitled to the same rights. These rights are only “reasonable” under normal circumstances, not “necessary” under legal theory. There is no evidence that the Patriot Act has the power to enforce a particular law or conduct, it is just a tool applied in a legal fashion. The people’s right of speech that is protected should be protected in all spheres of life, such as those that might arise out of a government action such as arrest and imprisonment and civil proceedings. This Act should be of no greater benefit than the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment under Webster’s Third and Fourth amendments.(Rice
3) But if the government has this right then by not allowing the people to speak freely or hold in contempt, and instead by blocking those in the way, then the government becomes more restrictive than the people and more effective in its attempt to restrict the expression that they have in common. The Patriot Act would be less effective because it would allow law enforcement to use those actions to keep them under their control and that they could use in criminal actions if that allowed them to do so.(Farrell
4) This goes for any person even if they do not act in violation of a constitutional right which is actually intended only for those people, it should not apply where the government seeks to violate a citizen’s right to freedom of speech. So what is the legal basis for the government to use any of our citizens against the government and its goals? If the government is the only person affected in a crime but does not want to interfere with the law in that regard then it is not really “lawful” to arrest and imprison any human being. The person might be free as long as they are not doing anything illegal or taking