In what ways do the PATRIOT Act and the FREEDOM Act protect US citizens but also encroach on their civil liberties? Why do critics oppose them? Do you think these acts are justified in the measures they take?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

By giving sweeping new powers to domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies in an effort to fight terrorism, the PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement to conduct more surveillance on citizens than before the Act. All of these acts are supposed to be put into place to make it easier for law enforcement to apprehend terrorists and protect people, but they also take away privacy for citizens. For example, the FBI can check and monitor phone, Internet, and computer records without first needing to demonstrate that they were being used by a suspect or target of a court order. The government can also more closely monitor people suspected of "harboring" and giving "material support" to terrorists. People who have no ties to terrorism claim that these actions should not be a problem for people who are not involved in breaking the law, but because the powers are so broad, innocent citizens are caught up in the net. These actions have also raised the issue of whether it's okay to monitor people even if they have "nothing to hide." One important case would the NSA wiretapping scandal revealed by Edward Snowden, although some limits have been put in place on using metadata since that story broken. Student answers will vary on whether they think these actions are justified.