Thomas McClung
I agree with Thomas McClung that Benjamin Franklin's principle of 'those who give up liberty for some freedom deserve neither liberty nor freedom' should be essential to all American citizens. Agreeably, the US constitution ensures that all government acts strive to protect civil rights and liberty before any goals. The Patriots Act, for instance, is an integral part of the Constitution as it allows monitory of international communications without a warrant, which expands the government's capability (Welch, 2015). I concur with Thomas in his view that although the Act conflicts the Fourth Amendment principles, the law has not detracted the citizens' liberty. However, I disagree with his approach to justify the laws from a Biblical perspective. Logically, his views make sense, but when it comes to matters of security, the Constitution should be the only point of reference because the laws are inclusive. Using the Bible as a point of reference to justify these acts, therefore, is unnecessary because not everybody believes and follows such teachings. The Constitution, however, mandates every American citizen to follow the law.
Brent Thomas
I agree with Brent Thomas in his appreciation of the efforts that the government makes towards protecting citizens. It is often difficult to find the perfect balance to protect the United States citizens from terrorist threats without interfering with their constitutional rights. However, the line has to be drawn since the citizens' safety is always a government priority. Consequently, as Brent observes, the government has to do whatever it takes to ensure safety in all aspects. One particular aspect that Brent’s article brings out is the use of StingRay devices. The device allows the government agencies to access previously unavailable information by revealing the serial numbers of mobile devices, which enhances the government's intelligence capabilities (Joh, 2016). However, the government does so without a warrant. While some individuals might feel that this is an unnecessary invasion of privacy, Brent feels that such actions are justifiable as long as the Constitution is followed. I agree with him because, at times, the situation may not offer enough time to get warrants. Therefore, investigative agents are used in such a situation to articulate and justify the circumstances, which, of course, happens after the security threat is eliminated.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Joh, E. E. (2016). The New Surveillance Discretion: Automated Suspicion, Big Data, And Policing. Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. , 10 , 15.
Welch, K. (2015). The Patriot Act and Crisis Legislation: The Unintended Consequences of Disaster Lawmaking. Cap. UL Rev. , 43 , 481.
