I believe that some provisions of the patriot act could just be removed all together, but it should still be an act that is upheld to provide a sense of safety.

I completely agree with the statement that "There is an inescapable tradeoff between security and liberty." In order to keep tabs on people or investigate, the government would require the ability to check up on, and closely watch persons of interest. At the same time, wire taps, financial  information, and  daily routines are things that the average person would rather keep private. I believe that it was okay for security to be balanced with liberty, but as attacks become more advanced and eminent , the government should adjust things to further ensure the general safety of its citizens, without being too drastic, like hidden cameras being placed in the homes of citizens.

The general conspiracy stereotypes of the government are supported with the way that the patriot act  can, and has been used by the government. It's a waste of money, resources, and just generally a waste of time if its mostly focused towards innocent citizens with less than positive views on some aspects of American Society. Many people would agree that the right to just take things (literally anything thats tangible) because they believe it to be suspicious or evidence without proper justification. The wire taps are bad enough, but the right to take things just because they want to is wrong.  Also, If government agents can actually order internet and library records on the spot, then there's something wrong. Without a real way of justifying their accusations, then they can just run through peoples private lives, without any regard for their rights and privacy laws.

If the patriot act is used for actually preventing terrorist attacks, and with good judgement, plus safeguards (like judge approval for wiretaps and other steps) then it should be left where it is standing, but theres still room for more consideration of the privacy and civil rights

To be completely honest Im not even sure if we till need the PATRIOT Act. It is as if it does not fully stand for what it was made to stand for. Yes everyone wants to feel safe to a certain extent of not having to worry about being in harms way on a daily basics. After 9/11 I’m pretty sure that the idea of being safe was no longer taking easy in the comfort of ones own home or even traveling from one place to the next as a daily routine. 

One thing the U.S. must remember is 9/11 is the past and we have to move forward in a positive manner an not get so wrapped up into the PATRIOT Act that we find ourselves reliving it by doing too many unnecessary investigations. There is a thin line between suspicion for protection an suspicion for insanity. In 1978 Congress decided to establish the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as special and with that the Chief of Justice had to choose federal district judges to review applications for warrants in regards to any investigations that had to do with national security. Any agents that have to or feel as thought they need to investigate will go get a valid warrant that would be issued from a federal district judge and proceed with further investigation. The only problem with that is that most of the time if not all of the time agents whether is is the police, F.B.I, C.I.A etc tend to do a little investigation of their own before they go get a warrant. I feel as though a warrant should be issued before the investigation begins, if it is reasonable belief that an particular individual is creating harm to society then there should not be any problem with getting a warrant. 

There has to be some balance between trying to keep everyone safe from terrorism and not just bombarding the privacy of individuals. The PATRIOT Act was made to protect the citizens not hurt them, when agents do investigations and leave off at a dead end that does not make us feel any safe. It just seems as if the government is not doing their job to the fullest and are checking the backgrounds of the wrong people. 

So far the heighten surveillance seems to be working to some extent, for the simple fact that we have not had a repeat of 9/11 and for that I am very grateful. So I say it’s only needed if it will be in effect to stop terrorism an not just for tracking  personal information. 

​

Lianna Jordan

           

The patriot act is a U.S law that was passed in the wakes of September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks. Its goal was to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies with regards to finding and stopping terrorists.

There are both pros and cons behind the Patriot Act. Some of the pros are the act is useful in assuring people that they are more protected from terrorist attack which is very unlikely to happen. It also makes some soldiers feel like they are trying to defend the act and increase the chances of men and women to join the army.

            The cons of this act is the simple fact that the bill of rights is being abused, it opens up a gate way to pass other bills like the “Cyber Security Act” which is a way to take control of the internet. I feel like this act gives the government too much power. I personally feel like the act means well inreffrence with the tourism, but the government has taken advantage of their inside power and are using this act to do whatever they feel is justice. I like the thought of the re-authorizing that Senator Ron Weyden; Democrat of Organ introduced a bill that would narrow the most controversial provisions of the act section 215. Unfortunately, President Obama, who supported a similar amendment when he was in the Senate, signed the Patriot Act re-authorization without insisting on the Wyden amendment. 

 

The argument of whether or not the u.s.a p.a.t.r.i.o.t act is still needed is only a matter of placing safety and security on a balance scale along with freedom and privacy as well as a matter of being conservative or being liberal. In my opinion,there are many reasons why we still need the Patriot act. Some people may believe the act is interfering and messing with the American beliefs of privacy but I believe it is safer to invade someone's privacy then to end up dealing with another successful terrorist attack. Some people believe that the patriot act can only result in the government receiving too much power and having too much access. Beings though because of the patriot act 15 terrorist plots were disrupted, I feel as though America would be a lot more safer with the act then without. Although it is believed that the patriot act was/is being used for things other then preventing terrorist acts such as putting homeless people off the streets, I'd still believe that things could be much worse without it. The only reason someone could have a major problem with the patriot act was if they were up to something themselves. If you're not up to something, then why worry about the government worrying about you? There is no doubt on the patriot act being successful on what it was supposed to do which was prevent terrorist acts and that's why I believe we still need the u.s.a patriot act.

Enemy of the State Response

 

At first, Enemy of the State didn’t seem like it was going to be a movie that I liked. I don’t like politics, much less get it, so it didn’t seem appealing to me. However, when we stopped it in class it left me wanting to know more. With that, it left me thinking about the questions that we were given.

Personally, I think our government is okay. I don’t think that they should be in other people’s business when they shouldn’t be, but I can’t do anything about that. They might have good intentions, which is nice, but when they act on those intents, they may end up doing more bad than good; and its all about other people’s perspectives. In the film, the government is crazy. They’re so invasive, and they’ll do whatever it takes to get what they want done. This is all in Hollywood, so obviously its over-dramatized. Though, this is probably what our government does, I’d like to think it isn’t as drastic as this. In class I described it as, “scary.” It really is frightening to think that we are allowing other people to view our every move and observe our daily routines that are supposed to be private to us. But, you have to remember that it is a movie, and it could totally be not like that at all. (Hopefully.)

Will Smith’s character was really good. I think that when Reynolds’ men targeted him, it was meant to seem very extreme and serious. When the gang of bad guys “robbed” Dean’s house I thought that that was very clever because it just made it look like it was just a robbery, and not like the house got bugged and the lines got tapped. Even if it was clever it was still an invasion of his privacy. Not only was Reynolds invading people’s privacies, but Dean and Brill got a little snooping done on their own. In cahoots, they both were eavesdropping in on the congressman, or senator, or whatever he was. They found out his secrets, were able to blackmail him, and then get to Reynolds that way… Or at least that’s what I think happened? Also, Brill on his own did some digging on that one mob boss to give to Rachel to give to Dean to blackmail the mob guy. Afterwards, when Dean’s world went into shambles, he wanted to find out who Brill was, even though Rachel told him not to pursue it.

My opinion on the government having my personal information and having access to it is that I don’t want to introduce myself, and them to be like, “Oh, Catherine, it’s so nice to see you… How’s your little brother? Is your dad still working at the restaurant? Is your shoe size a 6.5 now?” Like, that’s creepy. I’m aware that the government has tabs on a lot of people. I’m not a criminal, not a celebrity. I’m just an average citizen so it would seem odd that they’re doing extra surveillance on an ordinary person.

If it’s an issue of a matter that involves the life or death of, like, 7 entire states, I’m pretty sure that the government should have access to certain individuals’ private lives if there are suspicions that they’re behind it. But, if it’s like a firefighter who accidentally messed up on his taxes, then no, because that pretty ridiculous. It really just depends on the circumstances of each person and on the situation.

All in all, these were my opinions on the movie Enemy of the State. I enjoyed the movie as one I would watch for entertainment, as well as to gain knowledge and insight on the Patriot Act we’re studying about in class.

First, I'd just like to ask a quick question. In this movie who exactly was the enemy of the state? Was it Dean (Will Smith) or the NSA (National Security Agency).

Of course this movie makes me think that the government definitely abuses it's ability to surveil citizens, but I honestly cannot believe America is that corrupt to have the power and audacity to do what they did in "The Enemy of the State" and refuse to go after the "bigger fish" that pose much more critical threats- for example, the dude that lost his mind and hit up that theater. Like, they will go through hell to get a tape they could have prevented from being created by simply have a better persuasion technique, but in reality they didn't realize some dude just bought tear gas and assault rifles, that's ridiculous. But, to look at the bigger picture, I still think it is kind of messed up for enough people to suspect the government is that f*cked up. Like, if they want to surveil me, go ahead. As long as they keep the terrorists out of the country, and we aren't doing anything illegal, then what do we really have to hide. I mean, I'd prefer they not surveil me, and I know a lot of you do too, but in all actuality, they do have bigger fish to fry then say, someone is seen smoking a blunt, or drinking under age. It just makes a lot more sense when you put it in perspective. "Should I go stakeout at a corner store and see how many teenagers I see doing something illegal, or actually help this country with my expertise in something more serious, like say, anti-terrorism. But, as far as how much access they should haveuse and when they can use it, it's kind of you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you give a kid a BB gun, and tell them they can only use it on pests like raccoons and stuff, chances are they'll probably shoot some other stuff too. That's what people do when they get power, so I think we should give the government full access or none at all. But, on a smaller scale, citizens should never be under surveillance if they don't know about it. So, in a nut-shell we kind of have to put our trust in something we may not trust a whole lot, but we kind of just hope for the best. We can only take their word that they are doing what they say.