Some sections of the Patriot Act are set to expire on June 1, and Senator Rand Paul recently finished his 10 and a half hour long speech to Congress. An "NSA filibuster", Paul hoped to delay any Patriot Act reauthorization by delaying Congressional action. Rand Paul has support from Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, who both support the USA Freedom act, which aims to end bulk collection by the NSA and other agencies and to allow businesses to release information regarding FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) requests. Rand Paul, however, believes that the USA Freedom act does not go far enough, and wants an end to the Patriot Act.
The conflict between privacy and security is not a new one. Throughout American history, politicians have fought over the proper balance between the two. Here are several quotes from prolific American figures on the issue:
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude" - Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Today we take an essential step in defeating terrorism, while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans" - George W. Bush, Ceremony for the signing of the Patriot act.
"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. Well I'd like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up to man's age old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course" - Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing
What are your thoughts on the debate?
Sources:
https://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY
https://youtu.be/LtB7SnGL00Q
http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/rand-paul-filibuster-live-blog-20150520
http://news.yahoo.com/u-senators-try-block-extension-bulk-data-collection-013449084.html
It is a tough choice, but personally I think that the security of the nation and safety the people is more important than freedom in most cases. This is especially true for more major cases. I hate having airport security go through my stuff and having to wait forever in lines to fly anywhere, but it only takes one time for something major to happen.
ReplyDeleteI think that the PATRIOT act served its initial purpose of making U.S. citizens feel more secure after 9/11 and enhancing the United States' ability to fight terrorism. I think that in order to determine the current need for the Patriot act, one must consider our current situation with ISIS. I think that if the United States chooses to go to war against ISIS, then perhaps the Patriot act is necessary in order to successfully fight terrorism. However, if we choose to opt out, then maybe it's best that the right of privacy be return the American citizens. I don't know too much about our situation with ISIS, so feel free to correct me or provide more information on the topic, these were just my initial thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI would agree that traditionally, freedoms have decreased during times of war (as seen under FDR during WW2), however with the modern 24/7 threat of terrorism, we can't determine when an attack will happen. ISIS is a threat to America whether or not we officially declare war on them. Therefore, the debate becomes whether remaining in the war-state of limited freedom/privacy for heightened security is worth it for the long term threat of terrorism.
DeleteRecently, the National Security Agency has been using the patriot act unlawfully against its own citizens, and even after the courts deemed many parts of the Patriot act illegal. We need a means of protecting ourselves from terrorism, but not to the extend that the Patriot act allows.
ReplyDeleteWhile I could not care less about the government having access to my browser history filled with Netflix and my text messages regarding tonight's homework, I understand why many people feel like their rights are being violated in principle and that alone is enough for a resistance uprising from certain politicians.
ReplyDeleteJenny: ISIL has in a sense slowed down its rapid expansion (rapid as in the pace they were expanding at summer/fall of 2014) but still continues to make gradual advances in Syria. ISIL has in the past week however taken the key city of Ramadi (a regional capital; it would be kind of like ISIL capturing Sacramento or Nashville) and the UNESCO World Heritage Cite of Palmyra (late last nigh/this morning). These advances are quite serious and do need to be dealt with, although I personally don't thing the US should lead counter measures because it would just convince more people to join ISIL.
To tie this back: there are currently a handful of Americans fighting for ISIL in the middle east, but the NSA really hasn't done anything extremely significant here in the United States (at least to my knowledge/ they may not have told the public).
I believe that safety comes before freedom in some cases. We are not entitled to absolute freedom when that freedom can infringe on the safety of yourself and others. But, observation and data collection is only acceptable to the extent where your own safety could be at risk. Who cares if the government monitors social medias when their main goal is the ultimate safety of the citizens of this country. Your privacy should come second to the safety of others, but only in severe cases.
ReplyDelete