Pros And Cons Of Edward Snowden

In this essay I will discuss the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, how it affected the lives of US citizens and the world, and whether or not it fits within our democratic form of government. The Patriot Act was a rapidly drafted and approved Act of Congress which was intended to increase the security of US citizens by combatting terrorism. Although granting increased security to an extent, the Act was and still is extremely controversial due to certain parts of the Act limiting the freedoms of American citizens. The Patriot Act enhanced the government’s ability to spy on their own people, and with far fewer restrictions, so many people were and still are disgusted, but many others completely agree with it. Millions of people, billions across the world have a historical trend of being happy to sacrifice their freedoms for increased security. The controversy lies with how more safe are you in comparison to how much of your freedom you have to give up, and that compromise is weighed vastly different for individuals across the world. Did the Patriot Act save enough lives to warrant what it cost, or did it inhibit the lives of too many people to be allowed to continue. The answer will always be disputed and weighing each side will be a very difficult task.

     In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to ever pass through the US Senate. Its critics use fear mongering tactics to scare people into opposition of an intrusive police state which they believe is inevitable given the government’s new powers. They consider the Act an assault on civil liberties and an invasion of the privacy of innocent American citizens. Yet the real issue is not that the government now has new powers, it’s that the American people do not trust our intelligence agencies to handle these new powers properly while still respecting their rights.

In this paper I will discuss and explain the patriot act. I will also explain and discuss the provisions of the Act and the rationale behind each major component. Finally I will give my thoughts and views on the Patriot Act and talk about if I think this act is necessary to keep the United States safe and limit terrorist attacks.

Citizens do not always fully understand legislation before becoming angry at someone. Who better to point a finger at than their government (Zuckerman para 7)? Despite the actual legal terms on surveillance, innocent citizens feel that they have had their rights violated and wonder why the government needs their information if they have nothing to hide. The supreme court declared in the third party doctrine that “anyone turning over information to a third party, such as a bank or Internet service provider, has no right to object if that information is later shared with the government” (Timberg para 11). Whether they understand the law or not, most people feel that their information should not be unnecessarily subjected to the government without their voiced approval (Zuckerman para 6). “Quite simply, the administration could have done a much better job of explaining both the potential and the limits of data mining. It should have made it clear

The authors maintain that in the face of wartime emergencies such as terrorism “we must adhere to the principles of political freedom, due process, and protection of privacy that constitute the core of a free and democratic society.” In opposition to Posner and Vermeule, they believe that judicial deference is damaging to our civil liberties as citizens, maintaining the constitution, and preserving the state. According to Terrorism and the constitution, deference to the executive is not only unnecessary, but it often leads to a reduction of our rights as citizens. The authors argue that judicial review has in fact protected our civil liberties from an expanding national security apparatus, which incorporates an ever-growing number of bureaucracies competing against each other, without using the constitution as a guideline. The authors look at a number of acts and programs such as the McCarthy-era McCarran-Walter act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, COINTELPRO, the Anti-terrorism act of 1996, and the Patriot act of 2001, to demonstrate how judicial deference has not made us safer but often more oppressed, and how the cost of the restriction of our civil liberties in the name of security has created an unequal balance damaging to liberty. A number of bureaucratic agencies such as the

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

The United States of America has attracted immigrants for generations with promises of freedom from an interfering government. Despite the country's guarantee, security administrations have been secretly gathering private information belonging to U.S. citizen’s. Disgraced by the National Security Agency’s lack of preservation of the American public’s personal messages, Edward Snowden, a former Central Intelligence Agency recruit NSA contractor, revealed documents that confirmed the government's protruding practices. Some consider Snowden to be a traitor for publishing secret government information. In contrast to these allegations, Edward Snowden is widely known as a hero because he exposed the invasive surveillance by NSA, led to major reform in previously flawed agencies, and has been celebrated by many journalists and reform committees.

More than six months after first sending shockwaves through the world, Edward Snowden is alive, not imprisoned, and still making daily headlines. A former National Security Agency contractor, Snowden was responsible for revealing to the American public the existence of enormous, secret government surveillance programs, tactics that irrefutably border unconstitutionality. He gave up his freedom and ultimately his way of life in revealing how the NSA was harvesting and storing global phone records and text messages, the majority sent by ordinary American citizens. Snowden voluntarily broke the law and publicly took credit for his leak’s, rallying behind his core belief that mass surveillance undermines the fundamental right to privacy. He felt

Specific Purpose: My purpose of this presentation is to inform listeners about the dangers of government surveillance and why it should be stopped.

Ever since the American public was made aware of the United States government’s surveillance policies, it has been a hotly debated issue across the nation. In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA had, for some time, been collecting data on American citizens, in terms of everything from their Internet history to their phone records. When the story broke, it was a huge talking point, not only across the country, but also throughout the world. The man who introduced Americans to this idea was Edward Snowden.

Privacy is, and should continue to be, a fundamental dimension of living in a free, democratic society. Laws protect “government, credit, communications, education, bank, cable, video, motor vehicle, health, telecommunications, children’s and financial information; generally carve out exceptions for disclosure of personal information; and authorize the use of warrants, subpoenas, and court orders to obtain the information.” (Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment, 2008) This is where a lot of people feel as though they have their privacy violated. Most Americans are law-abiding citizens who do not commit illegal acts against the country, they want to go about their lives, minding their own business and not having to worry about outside interference. The fine line between privacy and National Security may not be so fine in everyone’s mind. While it is the job of government agencies to ensure the overall safety of the country and those living in it, the citizens that obey the law and do not do anything illegal often wonder why they are subject to any kind of search, when they can clearly point out, through documentation, that they have never done anything wrong.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”