these two sides of the argument are both pretty well put forth. There are arguments for the fact that these etensive powers are necessary in these times of terrorism. It seems that the red tape and the so called ‘checks and balances’ are just a formality that hinders the gvt from persuing leads and capturing vital suspects in a timely manner.
But it is also easy to see why there would be an uproar to this point of view. There is an obvious infringement on the privacy of ordinary american citizens. Things such as the roving wire taps and data mining capabilities of the gvt bring to light the seriousness of the situation.
The question then is raised, should the people of America be willing to give up some privacy in order to avoid another 9/11 situation. Is it worth having people monitor what you are saying if it means you will be safer in the long run?
In the area of technology the gvt now has unpreccedented powers on what they can monitor and the penalties for this type of fraud. I believe that in the interests of national security, some of these powers granted by the patriot act are necessary. There is a need for the gvt to be able to act swiftly and effectively in trying to prevent terror acts. But there has to be some form of accountability. It is imparative that the patriot act be toned down in some areas. The gvt should have to get warrants from the judicial system to instutuite any for of privacy infringement on individuals. This will help keep the balance of power in these areas.
Transparency is required by the government when conducting these acts. The way they mix the wording in the patriot act makes you feel like they are hiding something of there are aspects of their conduct which they would rather have the world not know about. They need to come clean on their programs and maybe the people will be more willing to grant the gvt the poer they so desire.
