Civil Rights

When a country is at war such as the current war on terrorism, should citizens accept substantially brusque rights as a permissible trade-off for greater protective cover? Citizens should never give up their rights. That one statement should authorize this full-length question. Men and women of this country atomic number 18 protected by the armed forces and local, regional, and national security. Yet, if their rights be compromised, why would they need this breastplate? The protection these people are getting is the security of their rights. It is false to act like people are receiving protection when they are actually only losing their rights, they don?t gain protection by losing their rights that?s ludicrous. ?Those who would give up essential shore leave to purchase a puny temporary base hitty, deserve incomplete liberty nor safety.? (Benjamin Franklin) This was tell in the time of war, I rally that Franklin knew what he was talk about. During this time there were men conceal out, and generals were turning their backs and there was a lot of corruption. This quote explains the whole problem. There should non be a person in this country that would sacrifice their rights to draw more security, it just does not make any sense.

To shape up my argument, the patriot act passed on 2001 after September 11, 2001 was a bill that was pretty oft passed overnight. It was passed to cover the NSA, FBI, and other agencies. The NSA was telegram tapping and reading personal messages, smell for terrorists and other threats. The ex interest facto law kept the NSA safe after the Patr iot procedure was passed and the NSA was ca! ught wire tapping citizens of their own country. We, as citizens gave up our rights for more security when the Patriot Act was passed. subsequently a few age of the patriot... If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper