Re: usurpation of rights act

Posted by Michelle LaCurts on September 15, 2002 at 17:30:19:

In Reply to: usurpation of rights act posted by masood ahmed on November 01, 2001 at 07:57:03:

: united states remained champion of individual rights and U S constitution is the pioneer in this regard. But now the patriotic act has shattered the image of U S on the mere pretext of terrorist threat and the congress passed the draconian law, through which the sanctity of rights will be infringed upon the mere suspicion.

Michelle LaCurts
15 September 2002
Patriotic Act
I feel that the way the Bush administration went about changing American legal rights, with this so called Patriotic Act, are unjust and unconstitutional. The fact that most of the American population do not even know about this law, until it got passed, should be an outrage to Americans citizens, all on its own. I feel that the government could have been a little more considerate, in informing the American people, before changing laws that will affect us all. Not only that, but Americans should be outraged at the fact that what rights could be taken away next. If the government can take away freedom of speech and the right to a speedy and public trial, then they can take away whatever they want. In a couple of years we might not even be allowed to own guns in our homes anymore, because this could be thought as a terrorist act. The whole point of the U.S. constitution is that Americans have the right to just about everything; when you start taking away these rights you might as well throw away the whole constitution.
When the Bush administration passed the Patriotic Act, they did not only take away some of our American liberties, they also gave in to the terrorists themselves. They gave them exactly what they wanted. The terrorist attacks, taken place on September 11, were to make the point that certain countries do not like how the American governmental system works. They do not like how many freedoms and liberties the American people have. To respond back to these attacks by taking away our freedoms is just absurd. By passing this act the government is giving into terrorism, and punishing over ninety-five percent of the American population who have nothing to do with these terrorist acts. The price of our safety is to high if it cost us our freedom.
I understand that the United States government is trying to get rid of terrorism in our country, but I feel that this act it is too extreme. I do not like the fact that you cannot prove you are innocent, if you are accused of being a terrorist. The government can just come in your home, take all of your belongings, throw you in jail, and not give you the right to a speedy and public trial. This is good if you really are a terrorist, but what happens if you are not one. Some people might think, “Who cares, I have nothing to hide?” Well, you might not have anything to hide, but can you prove this, without having any kind of trial, if someone accuses you of terrorism. So, you might want to rethink your question now. I do understand that the government has to take extreme measure for terrorist attacks, but I cannot believe that you cannot prove you are innocent anymore. If the government was to make this act less extreme, I might consider agreeing to it, but under its present conditions, I fully disapprove of the Patriotic Act, passed by the Bush Administration.

Responses:

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:23AM