A substantive comment should be approximately 350 words or more for each response.

Cite sources within your comment to support your statements.

Include at least two or more reference, properly formatted, not just a link.

RESPONSES FOR 3

RESPONSE 1

Gov’t Involvement MOD4/Post 1

This is an interesting topic. I feel like my opinion may differ from most. Does ultimate security against domestic terrorism mean too much government involvement? This may infringe on people’s perceptions of the first Amendment. Americans have the freedom of speech, to assemble peacefully and are free to express themselves (“First Amendment”, n.d.). According to Haydel (2009) advancement is the internet and requirements to national security are growing too fast to protect First Amendment rights. This brings into question the Patriot Act. According to the DOJ, the Patriot Act maintains the protections of American’s First Amendment rights (“Dispelling Some”, n.d.). The Patriot Act is limited to acts of terror or threats human life and there’s no interest in peaceful assembly or speech (“Dispelling Some”, n.d.).

This is a slippery slope. I think the government should be involved and there should be more laws against domestic terrorism. A major deficiency is the lack of authorities for law enforcement to pursue and prevent terrorism. I’m not saying there should be a free for all and the government can or should investigate everyone. But, if you have nothing to hide, what is the concern. Clearly defined laws and authorities for investigation and domestic intelligence collection can greatly prevent terrorism in the homeland.

According to Martinez (2020) The DHS and Fusion Centers across the country have violated First Amendment rights and the Privacy Act by collecting on Americans which resulted in unconstitutional investigations. To my point of being a slippery slope, there is a limit but powers will always be abused at some point. There needs to be regulation and regulation authorities for oversight. There will always be threats against Americas and the threat is evolving with cyber terrorism. The Patriot Act is a good start in preventing domestic terrorism but more needs to be put into place to provide the protections required. I fear that the common citizen will push back and claim their rights are violated, which will prevent additional laws. I bet if a terrorist attack directly affected them or immediately following 9-11, most Americans would feel differently. We must take caution not to allow the government to take complete control but refine what domestic terrorism is and outline better authority to prevent these acts. If we do this, our communities will be better protected.

Scott

References:

Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA Patriot Act. (n.d). DOJ. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/u_myths.ht…

First Amendment. (n.d.). Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved from: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ame…

Haydel, J. (2009). Privacy. The First Amendment Encyclopedia:

Presented by The John Seigenthaler Chair Of Excellence in First Amendment Studies. Retrieved from: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1141/privacy#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20protection%20of,First%20Amendment%2C%20in%20Stanley%20v.

Martinez, F. (October 04, 2020). A Disturbing Outlook for Dissent. Inside Sources. Retrieved from: https://www.insidesources.com/a-disturbing-outlook…

RESPONSE 2

Liberty or Death?

While Mr. Ventura brings up a point that may be of popular opinion in some circles, the idea that we are having freedoms taken away is a relative truth. From my perspective we have been trading “freedoms” for safety and security as societies have expanded through history. Simply look at the auto industry seatbelt rise from 1968 and eventual law in 49 states in 1996 (Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Laws 2015). It was met with criticism at it inception, but the truth is in the numbers. You can ride in your car without one illegally but give up a little freedom by complying with the law and you are statistically more likely to survive in the event that there is an accident. You have to weigh that freedom that you are putting on the chopping block against what you are gaining.

We have had more safety measures in trade for defense of our homeland by the government. This is again because the data has pointed to the likely hood of terror attacks. After 9/11, the patriot act was the first of many laws that changed the way the government was allowed to surveil citizens (ACLU 2020). This was likely due to the increase in communication and functionality that technology allowed terrorist to have leading up to 9/11. The point of contention here could be argued as a government overreach, invasion of privacy, and loss of freedoms.

TSA has also received substantial criticism with the loss or violation of freedoms of those traveling by air as well. This organization was also created after the events of sept 11 (Affairs, 2017) because of how terrorist used this medium (much like technology) to carry out their plans and inflict damage to America and its people. The criticism for TSA often is that we gave up freedoms when they were enacted.

The reference I found from the ACLU was not a feel-good article in favor of the patriot act. On the contrary it listed multiple freedom violations that the ACLU though the government has made against the people of this nation. Among them were numbers (remember how important stats are at driving laws) showing that while using techniques of surveillance under the patriot act there were 53 other criminal referrals (money laundering, illegal immigration, fraud, and drug trafficking) that were uncovered and reported instead of terror plots (ACLU 2020). So yes, if you want to say that we lost freedoms under this act in the name of homeland defense I understand. What this example points out is that we still caught bad people doing bad things.

In regard to TSA and “freedoms that we have given up”, we still maintain the ability to travel. In their own words TSA exists to “protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce” (Affairs, 2017 pg1). I use this quote to point out the fact that because we can still get on a plane and travel, is a testament to our government and the American people for finding common ground.

Back in 2001 our government changed our laws because bad people abused our infrastructure security short falls to harm our nation and its people. This was not the first time that we had reached a compromise with governing officials concerning freedom and security, and it certainly will not be the last with the rise of domestic terror organizations (like Antifa and BLM) that we face now.

I think an appropriate quote to end this discussion is from one of our founding fathers, the guys that knew what would drive the American people to greatness and how freedom would allow us to do so. “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety “Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790). Its up to us and our constitution to decide what is deemed essential liberties. If our adversaries continue to abuse the freedoms that we have in place to harm us, we will have to decide what is worth defending and what is worth compromising on.

Lucas

Reference:

Primary Enforcement of Seat Belt Laws. (2015, December 2). https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/calculator/factsheet/seatbelt.html.

Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. (2020) www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act.

Affairs, P. (2017, September 1). Eight Things You Probably Didn’t Know About TSA. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.dhs.gov/blog/2017/08/31/eight-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-tsa.

RESPONSE 3

Module 4 – How far can the government push the bubble of freedom?

This is a topic that has created a lot of debate over the years. We all want freedoms, rights, and safety from terrorism and criminals, and we want it provided by the government. Just how far is the government willing to push the bubble of freedom, and how far are we going to let them for that freedom? Working for a federal agency, I know what we have to do, and if it takes away a few freedom rights for the safety of others, so be it. We are always dealing with people complaining that we are stopping them or detaining them for no reason. We try to explain to them, we have a job, and if we don’t do it, they will complain. People will complain if I don’t do my job, and then if I do my job, they don’t want us to inconvenience them. Most people live in their small little world and don’t realize its much larger than that, and decisions have to be made for the majority.

When the hijackers killed so many people on September 11^th, people were up in arms about why. Then they were up in arms, why the government did not do anything. Because of these demands, the US created the Patriot Act. (justice.gov, n.d.). The Patriot Act was initially designed to investigate terrorisms and those who support terrorism. It allows the government to conduct surveillance by use of technology, to include cellphones. However, like any good government program or act, some loopholes can be exploited. Law enforcement agencies have always used the law for obtaining wiretaps on phones, and other technology, for criminal activity. When the Patriot Act was being drafted, they included terminology that allowed for a whole list of other crimes to be investigated, not about terrorism (govinvfo.gov, 2001). The Patriot Act was sold as an anti-terrorism act, and everybody bought into it. It seems that Congress was in such a hurry to pass a bill and look good; they did not realize the impact it would have in the years to come.

The patriot act has several different sections, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), section 702, and was added as an amendment in 2008. (Bischoff, 2020). “It allows intelligence agencies to collect foreign intelligence from non-Americans located outside the United States.” (Bischoff, 2020) This is a loophole in the Patriot act, where surveillance can be used to investigate non-citizens; however, it opens the door to investigate US citizens.

Technology is changing the world, and law enforcement has to keep up. In 2001 cellphones were slowly on the rise, and smartphones were practically non-existent. Within a few years, this changed. Personal cell phones have more capability that many computers did in the 1990s. A cellphone has communication, internet, global positioning tracking, and a variety of other features. “The cellphone is rapidly becoming the most universal accessory among human beings anywhere in the world. The expansion of its use and capability has made the cellphone not just a communications device but the planner, personal computer, mapping mechanism and record storage device for most people.” (Turley, 2017). People will complain about government tracking; however, at the same time, people will post things on social media about their location, what they are doing, and other stuff.

I believed that many people who complain about the government were too young to understand what it was like on September 11, 200. They will never know that the gaps in the country’s security allowed for hijackers to attack the US. People will always complain about law enforcement, but they never praise them for doing a good job or stopping a crime. You rarely hear about the good things, especially from the news. Law enforcement today is now using social media as an investigation tool. When needed, law enforcement can request warrants for cellphone and text tracking, and it is legal under the Patriot Act. Countless crimes have been solved by the use of surveying and gathering information from technology.

Unfortunately, some use the loopholes and violate rules of ethics and sworn duty. Many times, these violations are used for other than official criminal or terrorist activity, for example, political or personal gains. We have seen this even involve the President of the United States. I am not going to get into a debate about the reasons why. Still, based on my opinion, the FBI agent who obtained the FISA warrant and used the information for political gain, not for criminal investigation, violated the rules of ethics and his sworn duty. Because of these loopholes, there will always be more abuse. We, as citizens, have to make sure that these abuses be stopped.

Mark

References:

Bischoff, P. (2020, June 26). A breakdown of the Patriot Act, Freedom Act, and FISA. Retrieved September 29, 2020, from https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/a-bre…

Turley, J. (2017, November 30). It’s too easy for the government to invade privacy in name of security. Retrieved September 29, 2020, from https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/362500-its-t…

USA PATRIOT ACT. (2001). Retrieved September 29, 2020, from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ56…

The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2020, from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm