In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the federal government moved quickly to toughen national security. More than 1,000 individuals, mostly Arab and Muslim men who were suspected of having some connection to terrorist organizations, were detained and interrogated. Airport security became more rigorous (and soon fell under the jurisdiction of the new federal agency, the Transportation Safety Administration), and a more careful screening of applications by foreigners to travel or study in the United States began. Congress passed the USA-Patriot Act, which authorized law enforcement officials to use broader investigative powers to thwart potential terrorist threats. Such expansion of powers exposes the delicate balance between the need for national security in crisis times and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Since its creation in response to the Red Scare of 1919-20, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been a staunch advocate of protecting individuals’ rights. In the excerpted speech I would like you to read (you can by clicking here), Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, offered the following comments about the USA-Patriot Act in a speech to The City Club of Cleveland, Ohio.After reading the speech, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: For what reasons does Romero believe the climate of opinion and tolerance is different from earlier times in American history? In what ways does Romero believe the USA-Patriot Act is a threat to liberties? What is the proper balance between national security and protecting individual rights? Is Romero’s “provocative agenda” an appropriate course of action in a time of crisis? Why or why not? Your thoughts…
7 comments:
In some ways, he makes it seem like the United States government is committing terrorist acts, and in a way they kind of are. like the terrorist took away peoples right to live, the government is taking away certain rights that are given to us. "Sneak and peak" is insane, if the government is going to come into my house and violate my privacy i AT LEAST want to be notified.
Romeo says the United States was quite tolerant of them and that we respected the terrorist. But now that we are in a national crisis the government has more power to invade on our privacy. I can sort of understand why they would do it but i'm guessing that they would target specific groups. Its almost touching dictatorship.
I agree with Romeo on his points. I think that the definition of terrorism is way too general. And observing where we go online can be good and bad. Too bad for all the creepers.
I think he is right. When faced with a crisis I think liberty and security should co exist because they mean power of the people. His agenda sounds really good because he wants us to keep an open mind to people we think are terrorist. And I do think the people need a voice in the government about what they are doing and how it is going to affect our life.But I think that caution is still necessary in our lives.
The difference (from past acts of this nature and the Americans response) is that now the American public is informed that we should respect the rights of Arabs and Muslims and that attacks on these two groups shall not stand. I think it is pathetic and ignorant that there is that sort of behavior going on. They didn’t feel hostility, they weren’t the ones who killed innocents. No, they were the true suffers, for being blamed for a crime not their own. The fact that the president has to be the one to say that harming one another is wrong sheds light on the messed up state of US morals.
We tolerated the terrorist's attacks because like it said in the doc. It said terrorism's definition for us was peaceful protest, and or civil disobedience. We didn't of it as much, and I'm pretty sure we didn't want to bring U.S. into disarray if we didn't have to. In the earlier times, we took caution because we were weaker and so on. But now I think because we are so haughty of ourselves maybe that's why.
Suspicion and paranoia is leading people to do insane and sometimes immoral things. Conducting searches on someone because of their ethnicity, race, or religion? Raiding someone's house just because they have suspicions? Receiving "blank warrents" for wiretaps? There is no such thing as privacy anymore. Information is readily available about almost anyone. Romero was absolutely right though when he said the term "Terrorist" was basically very vague. Peaceful protests being counted as terrorist activities? What is the world coming to?
The US is definitely more tolerant than earlier in American History, but according to this speech, terrorists have been taking advantage of this, and yet it's still a positive thing in the eyes of Romero. He thinks that the USA-Patriot Act is a threat to liberties such as security, freedoms, values, diversity, equality, privacy, and a number of others as well. Romero believes that the new law is giving the government almost too much power. His solution to this seemed to be that he wanted to crack the whip and get the government to go back to it's earlier state of power where it is not so expanded to the point where it's violating the personal bubble of tons of people.
Like Mr. Prill allways tells us that we are willing to lose our rights for protection. Quite frankly, i enjoy the patriot act in place, because now everything is taken into account. I love this country and want everything done to secure our security. You dont even know what kind of things the government does, and really im glad i dont. Too much information. That could get you killed.
Post a Comment