Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the United States government began to impose multiple laws that sought to ensure the safety of the country. However, egregious consequences ensued out of the implementation of these laws. As the laws began to add up, citizens began to have many of the rights guaranteed to them in the Constitution being infringed upon. The United States has allowed the fear of another terrorist attack to fundamentally change its way of thinking, a goal of these terrorist groups. This change in thinking has allowed the United States to become a society with many qualities that it had previously condemned in other societies. Therefore I believe that the best option for the United States to begin a process to repeal the provisions created by the Patriot Act, NDAA and any other laws that infringe on the civil liberties of the average American citizen. In turn the United States will create a more free society and overcome the fears of terrorism all while maintaining the national security they sought to create.
One of the major issues that would arise under my proposed policy is what would the United States do about national protection? First of all, the acts would not end in one decisive action. I would rather have that the country ease out of our current system, thus allowing people to make the transition much easier. The truth is that people should not fear this society, but rather embrace it. In removing multiple provisions of the Patriot Act and NDAA, the United States would become a society more like the one envisioned by the nation’s forefathers when the Bill of Rights was drafted in the United States Constitution. One pressing issue relating to safety would regard the quality of airport security, which drastically changed after the adoption of the Patriot Act. My solution to this would be to give the responsibility to the airline companies themselves to handle security. To some this may sound dangerous, but in reality it is really a safe decision. In a capitalist society, the airline companies will do whatever they can to please their customers, one of the basic things they can do is make them feel safe on the plane. Therefore, the companies would have rigorous safety measures to ensure the safety of their customers.
1.The issue in question is the depletion of the Earth’s rainforests. The importance of the issue is clearly stated throughout the essay.
2.There are four very distinctive perspectives in the essay. The perspectives in this essay are those of the locals, businessmen, medical researchers, and environmentalists. The thesis is very informative and concise as it clearly states what the four different perspectives are and that they each differ from one another.
3.The introduction and the conclusion do offer very effective leads. This can be determined from how well of a job that the introduction does in introducing the reader to basic background information on the topic. The conclusion is also an effective lead in that the author says how he or she would like to continue his or her research on the topic, showing that the topic will continue to be an issue of concern in the future.
4.I found the essay to be very effective in many parts. I thought the author provided a lot of solid information in his or her body paragraphs, such as the information about the plant, which raises the survival rates of child leukemia patients from 20% to 80%. I would have suggested to the writer to maybe provide a couple worst-case scenarios if society to chose to go to either extreme on the deforestation issue. However, I found the essay to be fantastic and not needing much in the way of improvement.
Title: The Price of Freedom: What People Pay to Say Safe.
Thesis: In today’s age of terrorism, which transcends national borders, the question has appeared whether or not someone is willing to trade their liberties for safety. Four groups that have developed views on this issue include civil liberty activists, national defense activists, Republicans and President Barack Obama.
I.Those who are strong civil liberty activists have taken a strong stance against both the Patriot Act and the NDAA for the Fiscal Year of 2012.
a.Civil liberty activists have shown a strong opposition to the Patriot Act of the United States.
i.Timothy Edgar points to the fact that during the enactment of the Patriot Act numerous suspected terrorists have been detained with no communication with lawyers or anything for months on end before they found out their innocence and freeing them Edgar and Rosenzweig).
ii.Civil liberty proponents also point to the fact that the Patriot Act is against the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution, which rules against unreasonable searches and seizures (Bill of Rights).
iii.Civil liberty proponents state that the right given to Americans in the 4th Amendment in the Constitution is being broken by wire tapping and other tools of surveillance used against American citizens (Zeljak).
b.Civil liberty activists have also spoken out against the government’s decision to pass the National Defense Authorization Act
i.Joseph Hoar and Charles Krulak urge president Obama in their article to repeal the NDAA, stating that such a law only allows Osama bin Laden to win in his death (Hoar and Krulak).
ii.Hoar and Krulak also state that civilian courts in the previous system have been significantly more successful in convicting terrorists as opposed to military tribunals, which the act suggests using more of (Hoar and Krulak).
II.Those who are proponents of national defense are in favor of the provisions of both the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act.
a.Proponents of National Defense have shown their support for the Patriot Act
i.In his side of the article, which contrasts Edgar’s viewpoint, Rosenzweig shows support for the Patriot Act. Rosenzweig states that the manner in which the Patriot Act is written shows that the government is very conscious about civil liberty abuses (Edgar and Rosenzweig).
ii.Rosenzweig also makes the statement that there is a point where preserving the safety of one’s country is worth the sacrifice of some of one’s personal rights (Edgar and Rosenzweig).
b.Proponents of national safety speak in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act
i.Proponents of national security suggest that the way the article is written only simply reaffirms rights that they already had to detain terrorists and in no way puts American citizens in any sort of trouble (International Debates 10.1).
ii.Many of these proponents point to other conditions of the bill in order to garner support for it. Senate Armed Service Committee member, Jim Inhofe stated reasons such as the bill’s funds toward active duty soldiers (Tulsa Today).
III.Republicans are a group that traditionally sides in favor with laws regarding the increase in national security, however there is small base of libertarian republicans that are strongly against such provisions.
a.Republicans have traditionally been very supportive of national defense legislature.
i.Former Secretary of Defense and Republican politician, Donald Rumsfeld was one of the heavy proponents of the Patriot Act. He was the one who fought for the act’s provisions in his case against Yaser Hamdi in court, which he lost on the grounds that Hamdi’s constitutional rights give him the right to a fair trial as a citizen (Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld).
ii.There are also many Republicans, like Jim Inhofe, who believe that the positive provisions of the NDAA greatly outweigh the area in question. Many feel as if giving further monetary support for active duty service men and women is the main item of concern in the bill (Tulsa Today).
b.There is a libertarian base of the Republican Party that finds the
i.This libertarian base of the Republican Party is lead by longtime Texas Congressman, Ron Paul. Paul states that the NDAA is an attack on one’s 5th Amendment rights that states that the accused must be told why they are being arrested (Wolverton).
ii.Paul also brings into question one of the major gray areas of the document. Paul questions how the document will determine who is closely involved with terrorism, such as supporters of a charity that was led by a known terrorist (Wolverton).
IV.President Barack Obama’s stance on the NDAA has been less than solid to say the least. He has shown both support and disdain for the NDAA.
a.President Obama has shown support for the NDAA.
i.Obama, although he said he would veto the bill prior to its passing in congress, signed the bill into law (Compromise of Values)
ii.Barack Obama’s past actions have also shown that he is not afraid to enact the provisions of the bill. Such is the case with the military’s killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (Hill).
b.President Obama has shown disdain for the bill.
i.It is obvious that Obama is uncomfortable with many provisions of the bill in its current state, which is why he intended to veto it (Compromise of Values).
ii.Obama stated that although he signed the bill into office, he would not enforce it under his presidency. Many saw this action as Obama affirming that there are numerous gray areas of the bill in its current state (Hill).
Conclusion: There is no question that the debate of civil liberties and safety is a very polarizing one. It is a debate that which separate two different groups of people even further, as is the case with civil liberty activists and the proponents of national safety. However, this issue even splits people of the same affiliation, as is the case with typical Republicans and those who belong to the party’s libertarian wing. Lastly it even causes a moral dilemma in one person, as shown in President Barack Obama’s leaning back and forth on the issue.
"Fy 2011 National Defense Authorization Act." International Debates 10.1 (2012): 22. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.
This source more or less details the specific conditions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) itself. This is an article that can act as reference if needed to point out a specific portion of the document. However, this source does show some bias in favor of the NDAA. The article states that the act reaffirms the United States’ ability to lawfully detain those associated with Al-Qaeda, Taliban or any other combatant of the United States, without extending their authority to detain American citizens. This shows that writers of this article do not believe that the act harms the individual liberties of Americans.
542 U.S. 507; 124 S. Ct. 2633; 159 L. Ed. 2d 578; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4761; 72 U.S.L.W. 4607; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 486. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/03/13.
This source cites the Supreme Court case, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld that took place from April 28th, 2004 to June 28th, 2004. In this case the defendant, an American citizen named Yaser Hamdi, was detained in Afghanistan and brought to the United States under the suspicion that he was a member of the Taliban. Upon detention, Hamdi received no due process, with the military citing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to defend their action. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Hamdi stating that as a citizen willing to challenge the accusation that he was a terrorist, he was entitled to being given factual basis for his arrest and an opportunity the refute the claims against him.
