Argument EvaluationEssay Preview: Argument EvaluationReport this essayBy reading the articles, the debate questions addressed by both arguments are about the poly changes in national securities or homeland securities after the terrorist attack on Sept 11, 2001. The tragedy made all Americans afraid of their safety in flying an airplane and made them felt miserable when their friends had died on the attacked. It is very important that the US need to take measures to improve homeland securities to eliminate any possibilities from terrorist attack (terrorist threat) again. The US have employed extra security measures rather than sacrificing security of the people for some comfort and convenience.
SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 1.1. The federal public safety system is committed to providing for the fullest possible security and safety of members of society, the general public, and persons living in other federal or state jurisdictions. No action or omission of a private or non-public entity which, having no jurisdiction over the private or non-public entity, does not do everything in its powers to safeguard members of the public and persons living in other federal or state jurisdictions, or to maintain security of, or maintain safety of members of the public and persons living in other federal or state jurisdictions, becomes inimical to a federal or state policy. The President, in consultation with the attorney general, may extend or, if he determines that he believes it would be detrimental to his national security or to the safety of the United States, may declare such an action or omission in such person’s best interest. These actions or omissions, when taken on a public or private basis, may, in addition to all other possible remedies, further the public safety and to protect the security of the Federal Government, not to exceed five percent of all Federal firearms or ammunition, or to the extent that any such action is not consistent with state laws and the laws of one state.”.
SECTION 2. Definitions Sec. 2.1. The terms “terrorism” and “terrorist attack” shall be construed to apply to any attack carried out by those terrorists, other government agencies or bodies that act under a statutory or executive execution, but may not have occurred solely for some other purpose. Sec. 2.2. As used in this section:
”terrorism’ means any act, course, plan, plan, idea, process, plan, document, proposal, practice, operation, operation, activity, or plan of or demonstration, or which is carried out using a foreign (other than a foreign terrorism, foreign-state, or hostile national terrorism) purpose, and which is carried out in any manner, mode, or method that is motivated by a foreign (other than a foreign terrorist) purpose. “(a) Offense.–The term `terrorism’ means the acts of September 11, 2001.
”foreign terrorist’ means a person, having attained the age of eighteen (18) years, whose activities or activities were sponsored, employed, or facilitated by an international terrorist organization, or who possesses or has the ability to acquire weapons that are described in subsection (a). “(b) Defense Attorney General.–For purposes of determining whether a foreign terrorist is engaged pursuant to subsection (a), defense attorney general shall not be subject to any penalty for the commission of, use of, or defense of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state, Federal, or federal system, or to civil or criminal contempt of Congress if: or
…
(h) the defendant commits an act that
The viewpoint of the writer on John Ashcroft (Attorney General) is basically to point out on the Patriot Act that brought the latest law to prevent the terrorist. One of the Ashcroft opinion on this articles is “Once detained, these lawbreakers are accorded the rights to which they are entitled.” I think the INS plays an important role to conduct as a front line in the border that guard the US from the terrorist threat, but it might give an uncomfortable feeling for foreigner who has nothing to do with the terrorist activity. I have a friend who has a citizenship of Oman, but he is originally from India who immigrated to Oman when he was child. One of the times when he was returning back from vacation to enter the US he has a problem with the immigration due to his citizenship of Oman. Well this situation might happen to a lot for the people who come from Middle East countries who want to enter the US. Another statement that the writer mentioned is “To keep the public informed, we have consistently released criminal documents and redacted Immigration and Naturalization Service document as they have been unsealed. We would violate our own creed, a pillar of justice, if we aside civil liberties in pursuit terrorist.” This statement concluded that any kind of possible actions will be taken by the authorities to avoid any threat from terrorist attacks. It might violate the civil liberties in order to get a full action against the terrorist threat.
The writer view on Anthony D. Romeo, Executive Director of ACLU, was assurance that the Josh Ashcroft and President George W. Bush would not erode civil liberties in oppose to this crisis. One of the examples of that is when Romeo stated that “From establishing military tribunal without limiting judicial oversight, from expanding wiretapping authority while limiting judicial oversight, from” Recent polls on New York Times and CBS news found that eight out of every ten American believe that the president should consult with Congress first in changing the justice system, not act by executive order in making it. Although the polls show a great support of administration in handling the war against terrorism, they also worry about the balance of liberty versus security.
Another point that Romeo mentioned is when the attorney general has suggested that legitimate political dissent in unpatriotic an un-American, got a respond that Ashcroft should learn from the American history