Click on the link below to read the article "The Price of Safety" in this month's Upfront magazine.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/features/index.asp?article=f013111_scanners
Once you have read the article, please respond to the following prompt in a thoughtful paragraph.
1) Summarize in three sentences (in your own words) the main points of the article.
2) Opinion question: Do you believe it is acceptable to violate amendments in the Bill of Rights in order to keep people safe from terrorism or other security threats? Why or why not? You must cite examples from the article to support your opinion. Don't forget to PROOFREAD!
The post 9/11 security changes are important and have greatly changed our national security. National figures are the majority of people supporting the new scanners and pat downs, while other people hate the new changes. The fourth amendment is being questioned due to the searches of bodies and electronics. No, the amendments are unalienable rights unless they are repealed by Congress. In the first paragraph on the Fourth Amendment, legal experts talk about the “unreasonable searches and seizures. I believe that this problem must be solved.
ReplyDeleteThis article explains the different points of view on the United State’s focus on safety. Procedures like pat downs at airports and tapping into phone calls and emails are results of the 9/11 attacks on New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. Some argue that it is unconstitutional and in violation of Amendment four, but others disagree. I think being pat down at an air port, is not in violation of the fourth amendment and it should be required, because it will help prevent terrorist attacks; if someone is not comfortable with being pat down, they should be required to go through a scanner. Wiring into people’s personal emails and phone calls, is in violation of amendment four. That is search and seizure without a warrant. Unless a warrant is permitted, no one should be able to hack into personal conversations, even if it is for the safety of Americans. That is definitely a violation of our rights.
ReplyDeleteWhen President Bush gave the National Security Agency the authority to wiretap and monitor the phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists without first obtaining warrants, it sparked an outcry of people claiming unwarranted searches or wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment. Violation of the Fifth Amendment was allegedly committed because terrorism suspects of 9/11 have not yet been granted a trial. Along with full-body scanning and patdowns at airports, the question arises whether we will have to violate our Constitution in order to protect ourselves from terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI think it is entirely acceptable to have to violate the Constitution in order to keep our citizens safe. The reason the framers of the Constitution did not include exceptions in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments regarding terrorism was because they had not yet known that this problem was to arise. Who could blame them for not dreaming of the impossible? They had no idea that the country they were building back then was soon to become one of the biggest world powers of the twenty-first century. If we have to momentarily give up a few of our rights to ensure the safety of our nation, why not? Why can't you sacrifice such a minor issue for the good of the millions of your fellow citizens? George Oberle said, upon gladly undergoing the full-body scan, "If it's going to keep me and others safe, I'm all for it." Here is a selfless man who looks out not only for himself, but for others, as well. If everyone was as altruisti as this Lutheran minister, the issue of terrorism would not be such a big complication for us. Would you rather be harmlessly searched or face the risk of endangering thousands, even millions of people? Before history repeats itself and before we get a real reenactment of the 9/11 incident, let us take action now. It is such a small price to pay for safety -let's not be cheapskates!
In the article The price of safety they talk about using machine’s that can scan a person’s body. Although many people would protest the Idea that their privacy is being violated, it is only to keep them safe. It is in violation of Amendment four of the constitution, but some people would be ok with the violation such as George Oberle, he says “"If it's going to keep me and others safe, … I'm all for it”. President George W. Bush had said that “the program was a legitimate exercise of presidential power”, like George W. Bush I would have to agree with the policy because if we did not use the scanners there would be a lot higher chance that there will be terrorist attacks and other illegal actions. So the sadly there is a price of safety and most likely it will be to high.
ReplyDeleteThis article says that some of the things that president Bush did were unconstitutional. It also says that terrorists need to be kept behind in jail. Also that body scanners and pat downs are crimes of sexual assault.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is acceptable to do something against the Constitution even if it is for the good of the people. The Constitution was made for a reason and should not be disobeyed. The article says that president Bush took away privacy without a warrant after 9/11 in the 5th paragraph. He would have any suspicious messages checked for any source of terrorism for safety of the people.
The article is about the world's security, and how it may violate our rights as United States citizens. People in the Guantanamo Bay camp's rights are being violated. Also, the airport searches may violate the fourth amendment, of unreasonable full body searches.
ReplyDeleteI think it is not okay to violate rights that we were given when we signed up as United States citizens. It did not state anywhere in the Constitution that our rights could be violated to protect the country. If the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay terrorism camp are United States citizens, they are proven innocent until guilty. They still have rights, like rights to a free trial. The passage says, "It's hard to know, since many have been held for years without trial," which means that United States citizens are being violated of their rights, even though they are not proven guilty yet.
I believe some very important points are as follows. One is whether the current safety procedures are constitutional. Number two is whether the Guantanamo bay detainees are allowed constitutional rights. The third is whether the president has the power to declare acts such as monitoring phone calls.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is acceptable to violate the 4th amendment to combat terrorism. The possibilities of catching or prevent acts of terrorism are much greater with the ability to wire tap calls. So, someone might be listening on your calls, but then again, you shouldn’t be talking about anything that would matter to the system anyway.
“Security officials also cited concerns about situations in which delaying monitoring for even a few hours while waiting for a warrant could result in the loss of critical intelligence that could stop an attack.” Sums it up perfectly.
In this article, they are discussing whether all of the new changes to stop terrorists can be going against the Constitutional amendments. For example, a big issue is the new Homeland Security at airports where people must walk into a full body scanner. Some people feel that this will protect and prevent terrorist attacks, while others feel it is taking a step too far. I do not think it is acceptable to violate rights in the Constitution. Although it may possibly be keeping us safe from terrorists, to violate an amendment you must first go through congress to change it or take it out of the Constitution, just like they always have before. “For Fourth Amendment purposes, you can't touch somebody like this unless you're checking them into a jail or you've got reasonable suspicion that they've got a gun,” said John Wesley Hall. At airports, people already have to take of all of their excess objects and walk through a metal detector. So, why should we have to go through a full body scanner with strangers checking out our body, when they don’t even have any evidence that we are hiding anything? In conclusion, I do not believe that we should go as far as violating the Constitution to possibly prevent terrorist attacks.
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how airports are allowed to search you in security. People are complaining about the full body scanners and full pat downs when they are going onto a plane. This is also about presidential power and the questions about the fourth amendment. They are talking about how president Bush was able to track people phone calls and their emails. They were arguing about how he didn't have a warrant to do that.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it is acceptable because if that was the case you could just break all of the laws and get away with it just to keep other people safe. That is why they made the Bill of Rights in the first place. Evidence to support my idea is when they say "Striking a balance between protecting the public from very real terrorist threats and safeguarding civil liberties has been the subject of intense debate since 2001. It has played out not only at airports but in many other areas of American life, with Congress, the courts, and two Presidents trying to figure it all out."
The main point of this article is if it is okay to violate our rights to keep us safe. It states how our rights are being violated to keep us safe from terrorism. It also states why these acts violate our rights.
ReplyDeleteI think that in some ways it is acceptable to violate our rights to keep us safe. I’m fine with tapping into phone calls if you are considered a threat, but full-body scanners do not seem right. Like George Oberle said, “If it keeps me and others safe, I’m all for it.”
This article is written about how we may possibly need to give up our rights given to us in the Bill of Rights to be safe from terrorists. It states that the whole nation, including the government, is divided when it comes too these kinds of issues that involve safety from terrorists. Two major debates that were talked about were when the NSA wiretapped thousands of terrorist suspects without a warrant, and the terrorism suspects being held at Guantánamo Bay, in Cuba.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that our rights should be denied to save us from terrorists. As discussed in class, it would be like "slitting the neck to stop the nosebleed," the nosebleed being terrorists, the neck being attacking citizens' rights. I say an excelent point made by the article would be when it said, "Some of the detainees at Guantánamo are undoubtedly dangerous and present real threats to the U.S. But others may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time." It is very true, some were just there coincidentally. They could be experiencing vigirous interrogations and punishments for something they're only suspected for doing. Also, we can't deny the rights of American citizens, like the right to a trial by jury, or as the article would say, "due process." I'm not saying that they should be instantly rleased, I'm just saying that we should at least hear them out and see if they have a reasonable and true alibi.
This article is mainly talking about government trying to keep people safe. But while doing that they are breaking some amendments in the Bill of Rights. In other words, they are between a rock and a hard place. It, too, is hard for me to choose if it’s acceptable that the government can go against the amendments to keep us safe. I think they can do that, but not go too far with it. But, President Bush went too far. “Bush claimed that the program [monitoring phone calls and emails] was a legitimate exercise of presidential power…” That creeps me out that he invaded our personal life. Also stated in the article, “Passengers had to walk through full-body electronic scanners or submit to extensive pat-downs, and many people objected.” Some people didn’t want do go through the scanner because they stated, “…the machines capture detailed images of naked bodies that are examined by strangers and can be electronically stored...” while others have health concerns about the radiation. Because of our right, we can make our choice in what we want to do, so they can’t force us to do anything. If government has power, we have our rights.
ReplyDeletePresident Bush’s administration tapped into people’s phones and basically eavesdropped on everyday people’s conversations, while he claimed that he was using his presidential power congress declared what he was doing a violation of the fourth amendment. The Obama administration informed everyone that the terrorists on Cuba are stationed on Guantánamo but controversy has arisen as to whether the terrorists (being in Cuba) fall under the rule of the constitution. Airports around the country installed full body scanners to keep citizens safe, while some people didn’t want the full body scan the other option was a pat down. Our government is just trying to protect American citizens from threats like terrorists, and if they have to violate the constitution to do so, if it is strictly necessary, so be it. “…President George W. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans and others inside the U.S suspected of terrorist ties, without first obtaining warrants…” I think that that is not necessary so I disagree with that but I do agree with George Oberle on the topic of the full body scan, “…‘If it's going to keep me and others safe,’ he says, ‘I'm all for it.’” The full body scan is operated by professionals so you needn’t be worried; only happy that our government is trying to protect us.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the main points of this Upfront magazine article is the ongoing process of the strict security measures. Another main point of the article is the debate on President Bush violating Amendment Four with unlawful search or seizure. The third main point is if U.S in Guantánamo should keep their rights like they have in the U.S. I do not think it's acceptable to violate our amendments. Only because, no one should be able to and our rights are apart of our every day lives and that should never be changed or violated. John Wesley Hall says "Here there is no reasonable suspicion; it's the pure act of getting on a plane." I agree with this statement because I believe U.S citizens should just be allowed to go on a plane.
ReplyDelete"The Price of Safety" had many interesting points about new and old security measures that were taken; and brought up the powers that the presidents have. This article talked about the new security at airports, and whether it's legal, or unconstitutional. It also mentioned the 9/11 suspects, and what kind of rights they should have. I do not believe it is acceptable to violate amendments to keep people safe from terrorism or other threats. In my opinion, the Constitution was written to be followed, not to use for a number of years, and then just change it because a new issue is brought up. I do believe it is important to keep people save, but not in such extreme ways. I agree with Benjamin Wittes when he said, “Security measures tend to get more extreme over time, because every time you introduce a new one, the bad guys start working on a way around it." I don't think it would be worth violating and changing the amendments every time there is a new threat to security.
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the airplane full body scanners and people's rights being ignored with these scanners. This article also talks about the president's idea that wiretapping is fine if it stops or slows terrorism. The fourth amendment talks about unreasonable searches and seizures, which many people are using to prove that the full body scanners are unconstitutional. I'm pretty mixed about people's rights being violated in order to protect them from terrorism because it's better to have fewer rights then die from a terrorist attack. However, I would like my rights not to be removed and hope the government does protect us like they have so far. Article four, especially, protects people's rights and will be violated to protect them from terrorism.
ReplyDeletethis Article is about weather or not airports should be allowed to search you without a warrant. (violating the 4th amendment) They are trying to reduce the amount of terrorists attacks, regarding 9/11. Some people don't mind the search, but some are aware that its wasting their time and violating their rights.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Airport security searches violate the 4th amendment because you don't HAVE to get searched, if you don't want them to then don't fly on the airplane, just drive. John Wesley Hall says "For Fourth Amendment purposes, you can't touch somebody like this unless you're checking them into a jail or you've got reasonable suspicion that they've got a gun," I don't agree with this comment because When 9/11 occurred, it killed and injured many people. Without these searches, this would most likely happen more often. We don't want this to happen again, so they try their hardest to prevent it from happening. So overall I accept the fact that the airports are trying to keep terrorists from causing a 2nd 9/11.
This article's main idea is suggesting that full-body scanning may violate amendment IV. Some people feel that this procedure is very unnecessary, while others agree with it as long as it is for safety reasons. Also, whether or not Puerto Rico should be protected from body scanning. As for if this procedure should violate amendment IV for safety reasons, I'm split both ways. I am for full-body scanning because it will make our country a great bit safer. I am against it because our rights should not be violated. You are forced to go through the scanner without the people at the airport having a warrant. That, in my opinion, should be illegal. On the other hand, what is more important? Your life or privacy at an airport? This is why I see this as a good and bad procedure.
ReplyDeleteIn the article it talks about how the recent terrorist attacks have started to make security inspections stricter. Some people are beginning to feel that the inspections are starting to limit their amendments. Others say it doesn't because it protects us. I believe that being protected is better then having your privacy invaded sometimes. "3,000 people lost their lives on September 11" and if that wasn't enough of a wake up call then when must we have another one to really get us moving. I believe most people would want to live then have their privacy invaded for a seconds every six months. So I believe it is okay as long as we dont lose our privacy for everyday life i think its okay not great but okay.
ReplyDelete1. The main points in this article are that airport body scanning and pat downs are thought to be breaking the fourth amendment in the Constitution. It is breaking the law that is saying you must have a warrant to search, meaning that you much have a certificate or something that proves that you are able to search a person or place. Others think that the airport security is fine because as long as they get in and out safe their happy.
ReplyDelete2. I think that is depends on which amendments are are violating because some of our amendments are needed and shouldn't be changed or broken. Others could but broken in order to protect others. When George Oberle says,"If it's going to keep me and others safe," he says, "I'm all for it." I agree with him because I also think that if the body scanning can get us on and off our airplanes safely then I wouldn't mind if amendment four was broken. But if amendment two was allowed to be violated then I would defiantly care because that is saying that anyone can touch or abuse someone else at any time and not go to jail or get in trouble for it. Some amendments can be violated while others can't be.
One of the main points is that we should not have to go though a full body scanner before entering the terminals to an airport, two is that the president should not be violating peoples privacy and having people actually have to do that because some people may feel very uncomfortable, and three and the four amendment say your not allowed to touch a person with out their permission unless they are going to jail. So i think it is NOT right to violate peoples right trust me alot of people don't want to go though a full body scanner. Why cant we just use the old scanners that if you have something metal on then it beeps.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion violation of the fourth amendment is fine but having a full body x- ray crosses the line. In this, a Lutheran minister states, "If it's going to keep me and others safe," he is going talking about the x- rays, I strongly disagree. If airport security is going to violate the fourth amendment it doesn’t have to mean exposing our physical self.
ReplyDeleteThe article was pretty much talking about 9/11 and how airports are bringing in scanners. Some people are very uncomfortable about these scanners because strangers are looking at them naked others are very open to this because they want to be safe and want to enjoy their trip not to get hurt. I believe that are safety comes first and the people who made the Constution and the amendments didn’t know that there were going to be terrorism hating America. I think if our only option to go on an airplane is to go through a scanner I’m open to that, because I want to be safe. “George Oberle, a Lutheran minister, says he gladly underwent the full-body scan when he recently traveled from Detroit to New York. "If it's going to keep me and others safe," he says, "I'm all for it."
ReplyDeleteThis article has main points. First of all, one point is that they are trying to improve security. For example, the article explains how they are creating more and more body scanners at airports. Another point is how they are trying not to violate the rights of people. Besides this, I believe and don’t believe that it is acceptable to violate rights in the Bill of Rights in order to keep people safe from terrorism and other security threats. I believe that it is acceptable to violate rights to keep people safe from terrorism because I think that protection is very important and you could lose your life due to terrorism and other security threats. On the other hand, I don’t believe that it is acceptable to violate rights in the Bill of Rights in order to keep people safe from terrorism and other security threats because you are going against the Bill of Rights. Also, in the text, John Wesley Hall states that, “For Fourth Amendment purposes, you can't touch somebody like this unless you're checking them into a jail or you've got reasonable suspicion that they've got a gun.”
ReplyDeleteThere are three main points of this article. The first is whether there should be increased security in airports and if wiretapping is okay. The second is whether or not we should keep Guantanamo Bay, and if the prisoners there deserve the same rights as Americans. The last is how the government needs to find a balance between protecting us from future terrorist attacks without breaking our rights and the amendments.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think that the government should be able to break the Bill of Rights in order to protect us. I think this because people deserve privacy. The article talks about how airports use pat downs to check people for weapons, even though it breaks the 4th amendment. My mom got a pat down in the airport and I don’t think it’s the right way to check people before they go on an airplane. I agree with the article when it says that "For Fourth Amendment purposes, you can't touch somebody like this unless you're checking them into a jail or you've got reasonable suspicion that they've got a gun.” I do not think that the airport workers should be allowed to pat down people without thinking that they have a weapon. I also think the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that are not guilty should be freed, and that all the prisoners deserve a trial and the same rights as American prisoners.
In the article, “The Price of Safety” by Patricia Smith, explains the extent of safety in the United States. After the 2001 9/11 attacks, America has been on edge and is taking the saftery of their citizens very seriously. While many may think the that the full body scanners at airports and the recording of phone calls and emails maybe be unconstitutional, some think that they will risk those things if it costs them and fellow citizens their safety.
ReplyDeleteI do believe it is acceptable to violate the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in order to protect citizens from terrorists and security threats. I feel that this is only acceptable in some cases. When “President George W. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans and others inside the U.S suspected of terrorist ties, without first obtaining warrants”, I feel that may have been a little over the line, but it was for safety purposes and they probably caught many terrorists. Although, I do feel that the full-body scanners and pat downs are unconstutional and do violate people’s privacy, I feel that airports should go back to the method of the metal detectors; they can already see what is inside our bag with the x-ray machine, so why need to search further?
This article is concerened with violating amendments to protect from terroism. This article explains that the fourth amendment of no unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated due to people trying hard to protect from another 9/11. Their has been problems balancing between keeping us safe and protecting our liberties. In my opinion I believe that protection against terroism is more important than protecting our liberties. I am more concerned with all of our safty than our liberties. I mean our liberties are important but I would rather be alive than have rights.
ReplyDeleteThe article is chiefly concerned with new procedures put in place for airport security. These procedures include wire-tapping, full body scans, and stopping any one on the slightest suspicion. There are major arguments for and against these procedures, and they are causing quite a problem for all travelers. I believe that these precautions are unnecessary and the dangers they protect are overly exaggerated. Wiretapping without the suspects consent or knowledge is a basic violation of the fourth amendment. Other systems, such as full body scans, violate many other rights. A lawyer specializing in search and seizure cases, John Wesley Hall, says “ Here there is no reasonable suspicion, it is the pure act of getting on a plane.”
ReplyDeleteThis article is mainly about the proceedings over the years that have been made to keep people safe from terrorism, such as what happened on 9/11. Whether it’s a full body-scan to get onto a plane or wiretapping, they’ve done it, to make sure terrorists can no longer harm our national security. Though, some of these things are considered ‘unconstitutional’, because they do, in retrospect, violate a few of the amendments in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I don’t believe that it’s acceptable to violate citizens’ rights, as they are plainly stated in the Bill of Rights. The wiretapping, as written in the article, violates the fourth amendment, of “no unreasonable search and seizure”, the fact being that they need a warrant to be able to monitor e-mail accounts, and tap phone lines. Other issues that violate said amendment are the full-body searches occurring in airports. I believe that all of that isn’t necessary, simply to get on a plane.
Also, with the hundreds of people being held at the US base in Guantanamo, Cuba, the detainees, or better known as "enemy combatants" are supposedly not entitled to constitutional protections because they're not on American soil. I judge that as completely preposterous because if any of them are American, then they should receive the rights that come with it. Along with this blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment, I believe that the government shouldn’t have the power to defy the amendments in the Bill of Rights by invading our privacy and the other obvious violation of rights, but instead should focus on protecting us from terrorism without disobeying the amendments.
Well the people are furious about the scanners or security procedures now. The people feel violated and in secure and people refused for them to check them. The new scanners however show their full naked body and other strangers, but Barrack Obama states that they will U.S. citizens from any potential threats of bombing.
ReplyDeleteYes, because the amendment come in great use at sometimes but without scanning or "violating", peoples bodies there could be many bombs, terrorism, gunning and threats. As in this quote, “tend to get more extreme over time, because every time you introduce a new one, the bad guys start working on a way around it."It means that without scanners or security procedures the bad guys will find away to get on the plane or any other place and threaten peoples' families' and lives.
The main points of this article is our safety when it comes to terrorists acts on airplanes. Since 9/11 our airport security has gotten stricter and stricter. In this article, they are mostly debating about how the security is or is not following the fourth amendment on "unreasonable searches and seizures". In my opinion, if you chose to fly on airplanes then you are choosing to in fact amend the constitution. When it comes to public transportation and the fact that we have already had a terrorist attack which killed thousands of innocent people I think that having to search is acceptable. Even though it is wrong to amend the constitution, when it comes to people lives in danger from no search then many people could get hurt again. For example, George Oberle from the article said,"If it's going to keep me and others safe," he says, "I'm all for it.", and I personally completely agree.
ReplyDelete1. Terrorism is making airport security more cautious and strict for everyone's safety.
ReplyDelete2. Our liberal rights are possibly being violated, because we are being exposed to other people and things that are not necessary in some cases.
3. Since 9/11, our country might be too paranoid about all the endless possibilities for what someone could do on a plane to put lives in danger.
I do believe in some cases, it is acceptable to violate these amendments. Only because there are lives on the line, and if they aren’t cautious enough, things worse than 9/11 could happen to our country. “…a host of new security measures have been put in place to stop other attacks.” If an innocent five year old is trying to get through security, then I find it ridiculous to pat him or her down and get a scan of their body. “Striking a balance between protecting the public from very real terrorist threats and safeguarding civil liberties has been the subject of intense debate since 2001.” If you really think about it, would you rather have all of your rights and amendments respected, or make it safely through a flight from one destination to another, without being killed? George Oberle agrees, ‘"If it's going to keep me and others safe," he says, "I'm all for it."’ The technology is getting more advanced and it can be scary at times, but it isn’t intended to be inappropriate, it’s intended to keep you safe and not allow harm to anyone during flight
1) In this article the main topic discussed is that of the precautions taken by our country to prevent future terrorist attacks. It discusses that of listening in of suspected terrorist’s phone calls without a permit, full body pat downs and full body scans in airports, and the treatment of Guantánamo prisoners. Throughout the piece, it discusses whether or not the majority of the public agree with the extreme measures taken.
ReplyDelete2) Although I feel that Airport pat downs and full body scanners may sometimes be unnecessary, I feel that the few moments of being rather uncomfortable should be worth it to flyers to keep their country protected against possible terrorist attacks.
As to the treatment of Guantanamo prisoners I am not exactly sure what to think. If you think about it some detainees “Are undoubtedly dangerous and present real threats to the U.S. But others may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time”
1) Since 9/11/01, our country’s security has been enhanced to help prevent events similar to those that happened on that day. One of the most controversial changes has been the full body scans and pat downs that occur in the month of November. George Bush took away some of the Americans values about the war against terrorists, but when Barak Obama was elected in 2009, he gave back some of those values to the citizens.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that it acceptable to break amendments in order to keep people safe from terrorism. I think this because in order to make our country more safe from terrorist threats, we might need to make some decisions here and there to make our citizens feel safe. “...President George W. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the phone calls and e-mails of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans and others inside the U.S suspected of terrorist ties, without first obtaining warrants.” This proves that we might need to break a few amendments in order to make our country a safer place.
In this article they are trying to keep us safe from having the 9/11 attack again that destroyed the United States. They are telling us why we need all of this security. Most people think that the fourth amendment that you need a warrant to search is so that the united states citizens have privacy. In my opinion I think that it is important to violate the amendments in the Bill of Rights to keep people safe from terrorism because it allows the government to access there private conversations. The terrorists are secretly planing to harm and threaten Americans. "That was the case in November, just before Thanksgiving, when new security procedures went into effect at some airports: Passengers had to walk through full-body electronic scanners or submit to extensive pat-downs, and many people objected." "But while wiretapping and Guantánamo are abstract issues for most Americans, what it takes to get on a plane affects the public in more direct, concrete ways."
ReplyDeleteThis article is mostly about how before you get on an airplane you have to go through the full body scanner. Some people do not like this because they say, “ the body scanners violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures…”, but others say it needs to be done to protect us from terrorism. Also Because of 9/11 the bombers were sent to Cuba so they couldn’t threat us here, but Obama said that they should get a trial.
ReplyDeleteI believe that violating the amendments is right to keep us safe from terrorists because if we didn’t people could bring on guns and knifes and hurt somebody on the plane. We have been using the body scanners for a long time now and nothing major has happened, if we go back to not using them a lot of terrorists could get on with weapons. I can see how some people don’t want them because they think it is wrong violating the fourth amendment, but would you rather go through that or get hurt on an airplane?
The three main points of this article are the violations of the amendments, the full body scans at the airports, and the closing of Guantánamo. People have been arguing whether the full body scans violate the fourth amendment of needing a warrant to search. Going to the airport has become a dreaded experience. In my opinion, I think to a certain extent it is acceptable to violate our rights in order to protect us, but when it comes to the full body scan, it’s just an invasion of our privacy. There could always be another way to protect us from threats or terrorists. I think that it depends on the situation because if it is really extreme and you feel uncomfortable with what they want to do to protect you, then I think that security could think of another way. Such as when they stated, “ Scanner opponents say the machines capture detailed images of naked bodies that are examined by strangers and can be electronically stored; some also cite health concerns about radiation,” who wants to go to the airport and be looked at by strangers? There could be other ways to protect us without looking through our clothes to check for weapons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the risk of being searched in airports is worth taking because it can take away the chance that something like 9/11 would repeat itself. It has also affects different places and although many people believe that being searched is an invasion of privacy it will help save many different lives if they succeed in catching the few people who do try to smuggle dangerous things onto airplanes. Some of the detainees at Guantánamo are undoubtedly dangerous and present real threats to the U.S. But others may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the people that are talked about here might not have been caught then we could have had another major catastrophe in the United States and that is the last thing we need. This is my opinion about the safety articles. I do believe that to protect the nation certain amendments must be foreseen but if it will keep the people in the U.S. safe than I think that it is worth it. Although many people may not agree with the things that are happening in to prevent things from happening, I believe that if they want to keep themselves and their families’ safe than it is worth doing. If something like 9/ were to ever happen again, I think that the country would be in such shock that they wouldn’t be able to get over it fast enough. Just because we got over the last terrorist attack in a matter of years, I don’t think that the United States would be able to recuperate in enough time.
ReplyDeleteThis article was mainly about the new security system at airports to prevent terrorism. Although this security system was set to protect travelers, it has been questioned that this new system violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution. People have argued that it violates their rights against "unreasonable searches and seizures," I agree that the new security system goes against the fourth amendment. As the article states, "Passengers had to walk through full-body electronic scanners or submit to extensive pat-downs, and many people objected," which does go against the fourth amendment.
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about the things that have been done to prevent terrorism in the United States since 9/11. The article is also questioning if all these things put into place to stop terrorism is constitutional.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people have to sacrifice for the greater good. If these things will prevent events like 9/11 then I support them. even though these things infringe on our rights they also are the defenses put in place to help keep our country safe I completely agree with George Oberle when he says “If it's going to keep me and others safe," he says, "I'm all for it."
1. The main points of the article include protecting the citizens and how security has improved and been well enforced since the 9/11 attack. The article also contains information about the new security checks at national airports. Last but not least, it talks about President Bush’s wire tapping and whether it is following the amendments, especially amendment 4, which says you need a warrant to search.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think it is acceptable to violate the amendments in the Bill of Rights, even if it includes keeping the people safe from terrorism and other security threats. I think that the 10 amendments protect the citizens’ rights, and not following them might harm the citizens and their privacy. “…warrantless wiretapping is illegal.” This is breaking the fourth amendment, therefore hurting the citizens and their rights. “Passengers had to walk through full-body electronic scanners or submit to extensive pat-downs…” This security check is also breaking the fourth amendment. The privacy of others is invaded. I do not agree with the violation of amendments, even if it will keep people safe from terrorism or security threats, because on way or another, the people are being hurt.
One of the main points of this article is that to some people it appears that the new “security” laws are contradicting what the Constitution states in regards to unreasonable searches and seizures, 4th amendment. Second is the concern of these laws being an over right of the Presidents power. But mostly this article is asking is the price of safety reasonable? I personally do not agree with the violations of the amendments. The amendments are what help built this nation to the civilized country we are today, how are we to go about then contradicting them. As stated in the article we must find a “balance between keeping us safe and protecting our liberties”.
ReplyDeleteThe Main points of the article are that it is extremely hard and very expensive to keep this nation protected. The article says that keeping the nation protected is the most important thing we can do for a good society. It also states the president’s powers and duties and it talks about the 4th amendment. I believe it is acceptable to violate amendments in the Bill of Rights in order to keep people and our country safe from terrorism and other security threat. However I believe it’s only acceptable if there is a reasonable threat or we have suspicious of terrors or security threats. George Oberle says “If it’s going to keep me safe and others safe, I’m all for it” I agree. Although I never get the opportunity to ride on airplanes and get full body scans I fell that it would keep more people safer and it could’ve possible stopped the terror attacks on 9/11. If I was older when George Washington assigned the National Security agency in 2002 I would’ve been all for it. Even if it does invade on some people’s personal life it could help more than damage this country.
ReplyDeleteThis article is about constitutional right verses the safety of American citizens. Some of the main points of the article are wire tapping, unreasonable searches and seizers, detaining prisoners without trial and the use of body scanners/pat-downs verses the American citizen’s safety.
ReplyDeleteI truly have mixed feelings about the government violating the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in order to keep people safe from terrorism or other security threats because there are pros and cons on bother sides of the story. I think that no one, not even the government should have the power to violate the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Just like the public said to the new protection plans and how “the Fourth Amendment's protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures” wasn’t right. On the other hand, keeping people safe form terrorism or other security threats is one thing I’d like my government to have control over. As dose George Oberle, a Lutheran minister, who gladly underwent the full-body scan when he recently traveled from Detroit to New York. "If it's going to keep me and others safe," he says, "I'm all for it." In the end I would have to agree with the minister and the government because people’s lives are at stake and a fully-body scan doesn’t mean the whole world is going to see it, so it doesn’t really matter, but what does is the safety of our nation.
In this article the United States decide whether or not to increase security to protect Americans from terrorism. The only problem is that some people are willing to ignore some of our rights to try to keep us safe. People around the world are debating and struggling to find a balance between keeping America safe and protecting our rights.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is acceptable to violate amendments in the Bill of Rights in order to keep people safe because our individual liberties are not supposed to be taken away. The full-body scanners at the airport violate the fourth amendment. I agree with John Wesley Hall when he said, "Here there is no reasonable suspicion; it's the pure act of getting on a plane." I also agree with Laura Seay, who said, "...the thought of going through that every time I fly is discouraging." I think that it would not only be a hassle to do a full-body scan every time you get on an airplane, but it also disregards one of our rights.
While I respect George Oberle's opinion, I disagree with it. He was okay with whatever they had to do to keep people safe, even if it meant taking away one of our liberties. He said, "I'm all for it." I do think it is important to keep people protected, but I think the need to protect liberties and keeping the nation safe should be balanced.
The main idea of this article is basically about how terrorism is a big problem right now in the U.S. when it comes to knowing who is a terrorist and wants to hurt us or who is completely innocent, but was at the wrong place, wrong time. After the whole 9/11 situation, Congress hasn’t stressed enough on the possible ways of preventing terrorism, but at the same time some of the preventions to this problem may go against the fourth amendment. Obviously, this upsets many people who want to keep some things private and safe. In some ways I don’t think it’s acceptable to violate the amendments in the Bill of Rights but in other ways I think it’s totally wrong. Well first off, in order to keep our country safe from any surprise terrorism attacks, there has to be some amendment breaking in order to prevent any chaos with terrorists. Maybe if there were better equipment or maybe more attention towards terrorism, 9/11 would have never happened. I think that these body scanners and the whole wiretapping issue is completely violating the fourth amendment. I personally feel weird and awkward when I pass though one of those naked body thingies because I don’t really like people looking at me naked that I don’t know.
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how new security measures are being taken since 9/11. As one of the security measures was when President George W. Bush had phone-calls and e-mails monitored of suspected people who might have ties with terrorist. But as soon as this became common knowledge, people started to refer to the fourth amendment of “unreasonable search and seizures” and later the courts declared that it was illegal and put an end to monitoring phone-calls and emails. I also believe that it was wrong and good for what President George W. Bush did. I believed that if you are an American, you should have the rights of the Constitution but if you are not an American the government should have the right to make you leave. So my opinion is that only when a situation is really a matter of national security, then can you violate the Bill of Rights but still it would have to be very important in order to do so.
ReplyDeleteThis article is dealing with the 4th Amendment rights, and the security of a nation. When George W. Bush was president, he looked through other peoples e-mails. On planes, they scan your body and see under your clothes as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is not really that acceptable to just violate amendments in the Bill of Rights. Why? For one, I don’t think people from war should be kept prisoner s in Cuba, because maybe what if some of them may be inasant? They should at least have a trial. I also do not agree with full body scans. I do not think that people should have to look under your Clothes, just to make sure you aren’t carrying a gun. I think patting down somebody or a scan without seeing the body is alright though.
“For Fourth Amendment purposes, you can’t touch somebody like this unless you’re checking them into a jail, or you’ve got reasonable suspicion that they’ve got a gun,” says John Wesley Hall. “Here there is no reasonable suspicion; it’s the pure act of getting on a plane.”
I do not think that it is right for a person to look through another person’s email(s), because I think it is very unnecessary, unless you have a warrant.
This article is about different peoples opinions on violating amendments in the Constitution. Whether its right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about this question. I don't think violating the Constitution is right, but I don't think that invading peoples privacy is either. I don't want terrorists on my plane but I also don't want complete strangers looking at my full body scan pictures. I agree with John Wesley Hall " ... You can't touch somebody like this unless your going into jail or have the suspicion of a gun". This statement is extremely close to what I think. However I also agree with George Obrele " If its going to keep me and others safe, I'm all for it". With having professionals working the body scanners I think more people would be willing to go through them.
In this article, I read about the new body scanners, particularly in airport security. Many people are concerned with the fact that unreasonable searching and touching violates the fourth amendment. For years now, the government is torn trying to figure out a solution to this important argument. I think it’s only acceptable to violate amendments in the Bill of Rights with good reason. Airport security, however, isn’t one. I agree with John Wesley Hall who says “For Fourth Amendment purposes, you can't touch somebody like this unless you're checking them into a jail or you've got reasonable suspicion that they've got a gun” and “Here there is no reasonable suspicion; it's the pure act of getting on a plane”. On the other hand, I also agree with Benjamin Wittes who says “that security measures tend to get more extreme over time, because every time you introduce a new one, the bad guys start working on a way around it”. He makes a really good point, except I think that having digital pictures of private areas is just unnecessary. I think they should either make a new form of the machine, without it being so invasive, or get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteThis article mainly talks about what is more of a sacrifice, keeping peoples rights, or keeping people safe. It addresses how President Obama changed many of the anti-terrorism efforts that George Bush had in place. It also talks bout the opinions of many citizens on this issue. In my opinion, I think it is necessary to violate the bill of rights for the safety of many people around the world. I think one the safety of possibly thousands of people is more important the the rights of one person. I also agree with when Benjamin Wittes says, "If we increase the use of wiretapping, that's quite invisible to people, so it doesn't tend to produce the same kind of outcry as when it takes a very long time in order to get sexually assaulted to get onto an airplane,". This is also very true and I think that the wiretapping should be brought back into the anti- terrorism task force.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “The Price of Safety”, by Patricia Smith, the extents that we go to for protecting our nation from terrorism is on the rise. As full body scanners, wiretapping, and other methods of monitoring humans continues, some critics feel these ways of “minimizing terrorist attacks” are unconstitutional. Presidential power is questioned in this article, meaning whether the President has the power to issue something unconstitutional, how that power should be used in dealing with terrorist suspects, and how to use this power to even more minimize terrorism in the United States. Lastly, the Fourth Amendment comes into play and how it’s been pushed to its limits. After reading this article, in my opinion, violating amendments in the Bill of Rights is acceptable if it could save our nation from terrorism and/or security threats. With that, I believe that if questioning a few lives could save multiple thousands of them, than violating amendments in certain cases should be allowed. But only to an extent, amendments could be broken if it means saving our nation from the problems, devastation, and losses of terrorism and other threats.
ReplyDeleteThe three main points in this article are individual rights, the safety of American citizens, and the 4th and 5th amendment. Individual rights are related to this article because they are being violated by wiretapping, email reading; pat downs at airports and full body scans. The safety of American citizens is important because we don’t want another act of what happened in 9/11. The 4th and 5th amendments are being violated with the safety of citizens. I disagree with what the government is doing because there are other ways to go about this problem with pat downs, wiretapping etc. The 4th amendment states that you must have a warrant to search somebody before you can accuse them of doing something they never did. The 5th amendment talks about the right to have a trial or due process of law.
ReplyDeleteThis article, "The Price of Safety," is mainly about 9/11 and other precautions taken to help secure citizens from any terrorist attacks. Should we violate the Bill of Rights in order to protect the citizens?
ReplyDeleteWell, if I recall, the Bill of Rights was made to protect citizens rights in the first place. I would say it would be alright to violate the Bill of Rights because our main goal is to protect the citizens from threats. Even if we violate the Bill of Rights, we would be doing the right thing by keeping the citizens safe from any danger.
Safety in the U.S. is important in my opinion, but sometimes they go to far into our privacy rights. "We the people" live in america, and therefore have rights, so sometimes, its not right for them to read our personal emails, listen to phone calls, etc. 9/11 was a horrible event, and must not be repeated but they need to find other ways that do not compromise our rights as american citizens.
ReplyDelete