Revolutionary Mothers Essay Example for Free

Revolutionary Mothers Essay Women of varying races and classes experienced the American Revolution in different ways. Loyalist women over-estimated the power of their class position, Native American women would see their power within their societies diminish, and African American slave women saw their hope for power through freedom subsumed by racial inequality. Regardless of the relative positions of power for each of these classes of women, their experiences as victims of war were similar. The chaos of war and a changing political system left few women, if any, truly better off it its wake. Enslaved African American women, those with the least amount of social or political power before the American Revolution, were taunted with promises of freedom from British office holders and eventually British generals. However, these promises only came to fruition for a fraction of the tens of thousands of slaves who left their masters in search of freedom. Dunmore’s Proclamation of 1775 enticed slaves to fight for the British Army in exchange for freedom. Dunmore’s â€Å"Ethiopian Regiment† met with disaster through disease and capture. Half of the regiment and its female followers died of smallpox (124). When the regiment was captured by Americans, thirty people were sold back into slavery in the Caribbean as an example of what would happen to slaves who sided with the British (124). Four thousand slaves, men, women, and children, fled with General Cornwallis. When he was forced to surrender Charleston to the Americans, many of the slaves who were with him were sent to NY and eventually to freedom in Canada (125). Not all those who encountered the British Army were freed. When General Henry Clinton ordered that Patriot personal property be confiscated, that included slaves. Clinton treated these slaves as property of the British Army and forced women to do the soldier’s laundry and help build fortifications (127). African American women who did manage to escape to Canada, were victims of racial hierarchy. The best lands available went to white refugees rather than black refugees. Those who made it to Canada were subject to  violence from whites when they stepped outside of their accustomed economic and social roles (129). There are regional differences for African American women who did not did not flee during British promises of freedom. Gradual abolition in the North meant opportunities for freedom. However, these opportunities were limited by racial hierarchy. In the South, farmers and plantation owners relied on slave labor to rebuild the agrarian economy in the wake of the Revolutionary War (133). As slavery became further entrenched in the Southern economy and culture, freedom became nearly impossible. Of the tens of thousands of slaves who fled, the British formally granted only 1300 men, 914 women, and 740 children freedom (129). Many white loyalist women also escaped to Canada. However, many elite loyalist women overestimated the power granted to them by their class standing. Loyalist women left behind when their husbands went to fight for the British were powerless to prevent patriots from taking their property and removing them from their homes. Elite women’s marriages, property, children, and mere presence were politicized (98). Women who chose to flee or who fled to escape the violence of the patriots were unwanted burdens on their enemies and allies alike (100). Not all loyalist women were hapless victims. Those who chose to act as individual political agents by aiding British soldiers and passing intelligence forced an alteration to the American’s language surrounding traitors. Treason laws which previously read, â€Å"he,† were changed to include both men and women (103). Women who fled invariably faced hardships in the harsh travelling conditions. Wealthier women fared better than those of modest means. Wealthy women were more likely to survive the journey to Canada and find adequate shelter once they arrived. Women of less means lived in tents during harsh winters and faced starvation. By the end of the war, the elite social classes were rebuilding their societal structure in Canada (106). Though many were still bitter about losing their farms and possessions, they made a gentrified society out of the relative wilderness of Canada (106). Native American women lost the most in terms of position and power during the American Revolution. Women were an integral part of the political decision making process in Native American nations. Women leaders of the  Mohawk, Cherokee, and Munsee Delaware sought to coexist with white settlers, none were successful. Molly Brant, mistress to British Indian Agent William Johnson held considerable sway with both Mohawk and British. She relied upon for her diplomatic skills and remained loyal to her husband’s British background even after his death in 1774 (111). Nancy War attempted to keep the peace between Cherokee and white settlers from her position on the Cherokee General Council and as leader of the Women’s Council (115). When negotiating a treaty with white settlers, Queen Esther Montour of the Munsee Delaware suggested the white man with who she was negotiating take the proposed treaty back for him women to read. He was incredulous at the idea that his women would have anything to say in political matters (116). None of these women had â€Å"counterparts in American colonial society† (118). White men who wanted to trade or negotiate with Native Americans were forced to deal with women in positions of power. Molly Brant took political action when she warned her brother of American soldiers intent on providing support at Fort Stanwix. Her efforts made her an enemy to the Americans and an enemy of the Oneida, a tribe once united in Confederacy with her own Mohawk. Molly’s home war raided and she was forced to flee. At the end of the war, like so many other women, she was exiled to the relative safety of Canada. British men came to respect women like Molly Brant. However, it was much more common for European men to view the gender structure of Native American society as abhorrence against God’s natural law. Once America had secured its independence, Native American women’s positions of power within their cultures was subsumed by assimilation efforts of the new American nation. Native Americans refashioned their societies in the face of threats and pressures from Americans who pushed European norms onto Native Americans. The spiritual and political roles for women were lost in these efforts (119). Although these groups of women started out in very different circumstances before the war, and ended with different social circumstances, they shared a common thread of the necessity to flee. They even often shared a common location of safety and freedom: Canada. None of these women had a place of freedom or power within the new American Republic. Many more slaves remained as such than gained freedom during the American Revolution. Elite women  eventually regained status lost during the Revolution, but in a new, harsher land. Native American women’s social and political positions were devastated by the results of the American Revolution. Just as their nations slowly lost their sovereignty and autonomy, so did Native American women lose their power and freedom within their communities.

Work Reform Essay -- Business Management

Work reform, as interpreted by the employer, is a modern concept that has at its core increases in efficiency and effectiveness and a content and stable workforce. Work reforms are a means to an end; the end being increases in efficiency, production, and profits in a volatile global market. Depending on which method is used, the goals are to motivate their workers to gain their compliance. By paying more attention to a workers values, attitudes, and psychological needs, etc. a company can set the foundation for a more militant workforce and perhaps circumvent unionization. A company can try to create a â€Å"corporate family†, for example, via a corporate culture to try to facilitate this type of reform. The implementation of a corporate culture is an attempt to get workers to â€Å"buy in† to the firm’s overall goals (Krahn, Lowe, Hughes, 2011 p. 244-248). Key themes include workers as human beings, organizational cultures, constant adaptation, co-operatio n, creativity, flexibility, work teams, doing more with less, continuous learning, flatter organizational structures, customer-service, and participative management, etc. The goals and motivations for work reform as it pertains to a workforce differ from those of firms. Workers see changes such as enhanced on the job decision-making, increased autonomy, a decrease in monotonous and arduous tasks, and more input into large company decisions(that will ultimately affect them) as positive. Other changes that workers would embrace are pay increases and the addition of family friendly work policies such as more free time, and on-site daycare. Since a number of large manufacturing and service firms are unionized, a motivation and goal for work reform, in this respect, would be for a co... ...enough research on it. Some drawbacks are less employment security, a loss of pay due to the profit-sharing model, and there is evidence of some firms engaging in downsizing and layoffs who have adopted HPW. There is also evidence that implementation of HPW systems in lower-tier service jobs results in negligible differences in any of the above categories. Only in the upper-tier services can more of the benefits of this model be had, which unfortunately leads to potentially greater market segmentation (Krahn, Lowe, Hughes, 2011 p. 267-268). Works Cited Krahn, Lowe, Hughes (2008) Work, Industry, & Canadian Society. (5th ed.) Toronto, ON: Nelson Education Ltd. Critoph, U (2010) Sociology 321 Study Guide. (Revised edition). Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Athabasca University (2010) Sociology 321 Reading File. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University

Diversity in American Education Before 1960 Essay

The diversity in terms of the student population in American education before 1960 was largely dependent upon the issue of racial equality. The push for racial equality in the United States got a boost from the demands placed on all facets of society during World War II. The mobilization effort relied on the black race to win the war and once it was over, there was no turning back. Furthermore, the ideals of freedom and equality, which were the backbone of the Allied war cry and the foundation for the anti-communist Western movement, did not sit well alongside Jim Crow laws and public acts of racial discrimination. The Jim Crow System is also called â€Å"segregation†. It is a process in and through which Southerners may be said to legitimize their racial supremacy over the Blacks or Negroes. It is a system in and through which the central idea is â€Å"differentiation†. The aforementioned differentiation is done on the basis of ethnicity or race. It is therefore not difficult to see that such a system will encounter numerous criticisms due to the implications that result from it. Differentiation entails the recognition that races are different and as such, it creates a political setting that â€Å"separates† races such as the Whites from the Blacks. In addition to this, it also separates and ultimately, limits or confines races such as the Blacks to a social sphere with corresponding social functions that are imposed on them. In line with this, this paper will focus on the manifestations and effects of racial segregation on the American public educational system before 1960. It will do so since the end of racial segregation within the American public school system was largely determined by the effects of the Civil Rights movement as can be seen in the discussion of the Supreme Court Cases on educational and racial equality before 1960. The following cases will show the effects of racial inequality on the diversity of the population in the American public educational system prior to the aforementioned period. In 1954, the United States of America’s Supreme Court decided a landmark case concerning educational and racial equality. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), the Court’s ruling is grounded on the principle that the doctrine of â€Å"separate but equal† [this doctrine is referring to the segregation policy, more specifically, the segregation policy in the schools in the U. S. ] will not and cannot provide Black Americans with the same standards and quality of education available for White Americans. The court thus, outlawed the â€Å"racial segregation of public education facilities† for the aforementioned reason. On May 17, 1954 the Warren Court handed down a 9-0 decision which stated, in clear and certain terms, that â€Å"separate educational facilities are inherently unequal†. Chief Justice Warren writes: Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. (1954, np) Moreover, racial segregation, as the court sees it, is against the pronouncements of the Constitution; the segregation of students on the basis of race or ethnicity and the legalization of a segregated public school education through the enactment of certain statutes serving to legitimize the creation and operation of schools that are exclusively for Whites or for Blacks, is clearly, not justified. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka remains and is still considered as a turning point in the determination of racial diversity in the educational institutions within the United States. The second case involves an implication of the Brown Cases [Brown Cases since there are Brown I, II and III cases]. Due to the Supreme Court’s verdict that segregation is â€Å"unconstitutional† and of course, due to the increasing rallies, boycotts and protests conducted by the advocates of the Civil Rights Movement, issues regarding â€Å"busing† as an appropriate means by which school administrators may comply with the then seemingly constitutional requirement of â€Å"desegregation†. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971) was an important United States Supreme Court case which deals with the busing of students to promote integration in the public school system. After the first trial’s decision in favor of the Board of Education, the Court held that â€Å"busing† was the appropriate solution to address the existing racial imbalance among schools at the time, even where the imbalance resulted from the selection of students based on geographic proximity to the school rather than from deliberate assignment based on race. Busing was done as in the cases of two Northern cities; Boston and New York to ensure that schools would be properly integrated and that all students would receive equal educational opportunities regardless of their ethnicity or race Milliken vs. Bradley 418 U. S. 717 (1974), just like the Swann n. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case is also another case concerning â€Å"busing†. Specifically, the Milliken vs. Bradley case deals with the â€Å"planned forced busing† of public school students across district lines among 53 school districts in Detroit. Hence, the case is also a consequence of the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case. The Court held that â€Å"[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect†, the district court’s remedy was â€Å"wholly impermissible† and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education (Milliken vs. Bradley 418 U. S. 717, 1974, np). The following statement by Friedman echoes the ramifications of the Milliken v. Bradley case The world was made safe for white flight. White suburbs were secure in their grassy enclaves†¦. Official, legal segregation indeed was dead; but what replaced it was a deeper, more profound segregation †¦ Tens of thousands of black children attend schools that are all black, schools where they never see a white face; and they live massed in ghettos which are also entirely black. (Friedman, 2004, p. 296) Another case set during 1974 shows the conditions of diversity in the American public school system prior to 1960. Morgan v. Hennigan is a class action suit on behalf of fifteen Black parents and 43 children which found the Boston School Committee guilty of maintaining a dual, that is, segregated school system. In a court order issued by Garrity, imposed or forced busing will be done on the city of Boston in order to achieve racial balance in public schools. The aforementioned court order was based on a complex system of racial parity and ignored previous busing solutions. The Boston School Committee, according to the ruling of the court, through various means and capacities violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs by imposing segregation in terms assigning students to other areas, segregating residential patterns, transportation and grade system policies, to name a few. The School Committee thus, violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution because instead of ensuring that Black children be given equal protection under the law, the segregation policies instead placed the Black children in an unfair disadvantage. The proper course of action that schools should take according to the court is to enact policies that will eliminate racial discrimination and not its converse. We will now discuss Boston Busing in the light of Ronald Formisano’s Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s. Formisano’s conclusion regarding busing was that it is a failure. The main aims of desegregation are supposedly, educational equality and racial equality. Both aims however, were never achieved. The desegregation and affirmative action policies were results of the Civil Rights Movement and the Supreme Court rulings on the cases discussed earlier. History reveals that the expedited implementation of these policies was not beneficial to the American society since it involves an overhaul of large areas of American civil society and political culture. This construal may be strengthened by the â€Å"White Backlash Movements† in Boston. Formisano sees the White Backlash [as in the case of Boston] as a reaction to the implemented â€Å"forced busing†. He further defines the White’s reaction as a â€Å"reactionary populism† involving the middle, working class moved by a sense of â€Å"threat† regarding the policies implemented during the time and the escalating number of White v. Black incidents in the community and schools. It is also interesting to note that the White Backlash, like the Civil Rights Movement of the Blacks lacked a unified reaction and stand on the issue. Whites responded differently, so to speak, on the issue of forced busing. Formisano’s analysis that the White Backlash is moved by a sense of threat is indeed a plausible idea. Other Whites actually support the anti-racial discrimination campaigns but the expedited implementation of desegregation, forced busing and affirmative action threatened their sense of security and their sense of community. In other words, it went too far. Given the aforementioned cases, diversity in American public education before 1960 was largely determined by racial stratification. This however was largely affected by the Civil Rights movement since the movement questioned the main assumption regarding the treatment of individuals with different racial backgrounds. References Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U. S. 483 (1954). Friedman, L. (2002). American Law in the Twentieth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press. Formisano, R. (2004). Boston Against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s. Carolina: University of Carolina Press. Milliken vs. Bradley 418 U. S. 717 (1974). Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410 (1974). Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971). Warren in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U. S. 483 (1954).

Constitutionality Of The Patriot Act - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 13 Words: 3764 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Research paper Tags: Act Essay Did you like this example? True patriots realize that one must protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that the essence of what it means to be patriotic is to protect our Constitution and its Bill of Rights will all of our might.- Amitai Etzioni One of the central themes of our nation when it comes to our national security has to do with two profound commitments: protecting our homeland and safeguarding our rights. However, in order to protect it, we have to give up some of our rights. The U.S. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Constitutionality Of The Patriot Act" essay for you Create order PATRIOT Act was designed to hopefully give special powers to U.S. law enforcement agencies to prevent future terrorist attacks. Americans were so traumatized by the terrorist attacks on 9/11 that they were willing to surrender their liberties. On October 26, 2001, after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening of America through Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, commonly referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act. The law expanded the FBIs wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority. It allowed nationwide jurisdiction for search warrants and electronic surveillance devices. The USA PATRIOT Act is one of the most controversial and misunderstood laws Congress has ever enacted. This legislation dramatically shifted our national focus even further away from the due process model in our attempts to control crimes by terrorists. The act has te n sections or titles outlining new powers for government operations. Titles I, II, III, IV, and VII specifically affect law enforcements role in antiterrorist activities: IMG.jpg One of the key objectives of the PATRIOT Act was to remedy a need of interactions linking the federal law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies that were individually trying to defend against terrorism. The September 11th terrorist attacks established how critical inter- and intra-agency interactions are to stop and take action against such attacks. The PATRIOT Act attempts to create a coordinating mechanism to defend against terrorism efforts of all U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. There are many controversial provisions of the Act in order to control crime that has shifted our national focus away from the due process model. The government has access to financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, and religious records. As long as the government declares that the searches are to protect against terrorism, they can conduct them without a persons knowledge or consent, and without a warrant. Today, officers can use sneak and peek to enter a home without notifying the person, look around, take pictures, examine electronic files, and leave. Prior to the Act, the search had to be executed with a search warrant. National Security Letters are used to attain business records instead of having to get a judicially issued warrant to have access to the information. The U.S. Attorney General now has the authority to order the detention of aliens without any prior showing or court ruling that the person is dangerous (Ferdico, Fradella, Totten, 6). The powers issued to federal law enforcement agencies violate the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right of privacy. The exclusionary rule is an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court that holds that evidence seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution cannot be used in c ourt against a defendant (Dempsey and Forst, p. 530). The exclusionary rule is violated by police because the act allows warrantless searches and even searches without probable causes. The exclusionary rules power was originally intended to be used only in federal cases. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was revised to sanction secret searches, without public knowledge or Department of Justice accountability (procedure, 6), as long as the government claims a foreign intelligence need for such a search. FISA allows federal agents to perform electronic surveillance and physical searches for national defense reasons. It authorizes surveillance of so-called lone wolves any person or group who is not associated with a foreign government but who engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore or engages in acts of sabotage (293). However, FISA does not control U.S. governmental intelligence actions outside the United States; these actions are i nstead conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency. The PATRIOT Act has changed some of the ways the federal government is allowed to collect and use evidence. Although the PATRIOT Act was created to ensure that the nation is safer from terrorism, some civil libertarians have became concerned that the new powers will have an effect on some civil rights. FISA of 1978 has authorized some evidentiary searches prior to obtaining a warrant, but the statute anticipated that a warrant would be helpful in most cases. The act excluded the use of any evidence unlawfully obtained through illegal electronic searches and surveillance. Congress amended FISA by passing relevant provisions of the PATRIOT Act that had the effect of limiting the use of FISA for domestic law enforcement purposes. The administration governing law enforcement surveillance prior to September 11 was a complex combination of limitations, broad powers, and compromises. Since there was a high demand for strong law enf orcement, the PATRIOT Act shifted this balance in the direction of greatly extended investigative powers-including powers to investigate crimes completely unconnected to terrorism. The PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement the new ability to search, seize, detain, or eavesdrop in their pursuit of possible terrorists. The law has become controversial and has caused many Americans to believe that the law threatened their civil liberties. The new antiterrorism focal point of U.S. law enforcement was seen undoubtedly as the United States waged war against Iraq in March 2003. The counterterrorism of law enforcement agencies in the United States matched the preparations of the military forces abroad: Perez-Pena (2004) found the following: As the United States waged war on Iraq, New Yorkers and others across the region are witnessing an extraordinary state of heightened security. Police officers are armed like assault troops outside prominent buildings, police boats are combing the wa terfronts and trucks are being inspected at bridges and tunnels. A sneak-and-peek warrant is search warrants that explicitly sanctions law enforcement officers to enter vacant premises, search for evidence, and then leave. They do so without seizing the evidence they find and without leaving a trace that an entry has been made. In order to conduct such a search, officers typically photograph or videotape the evidence or otherwise document exactly what they saw and its exact location. The U.S. PATRIOT Act was enacted less than two months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Sections 213 of the Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. 3103a(b), contained the first express statutory authorization for the issuance of sneak-and-peak search warrants in American history (Duncan, p. 24). This section provided:   Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   (b) delay-without respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order un der this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if: 1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705, except if the adverse results consist only of unduly delaying a trial); (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days after the date of its execution, or on a later date certain if the facts of the case justify a longer period of delay. Although the PATRIOT Act has tried to focus more on expansion on the United State idea of terrorism and protecting the people, the Bill of Rights is being threatened, mainly the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. The primary amendment the PATRIOT Act hindered was the first amendment, the right of freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. The PATRIOT Act began to infringe on this freedom by allowing the use of roving wire taps. Roving wiretaps are able to be placed on every phone or computer that the target of an investigation may use (6). Although it allows the government to keep up to date with the new technologies that terrorist use, it invades the privacy of many unaffiliated innocent civilians who may come into contact with the suspect. One reason for the PATRIOT Act is the need for stronger legal tools. Well-designed legal powers play a fundamental role in facilitation strong, practical tactics and successful precautionary effort s. Legal authority can be the key to gaining necessary information about enemies and their unfolding plans. However, we must not misjudge the significance of law, even such a broad and important law as the PATRIOT Act. The value of access to more and better information seems obvious-so obvious that many Americans can now think it precautious to give counterterrorism officials broad authority to gather whatever information they deem of use. This widely shared assumption is not, at first blush, unreasonable. But it is deceptive because legal authority is not as much of importance for successful intelligence actions as the public and the legal professions generally believe. An efficient intelligence method needs that information be gathered, translated, pooled the relevant agencies, analyzed, and then transmitted to those in a position to investigate further to take quick preventive action (Schulhofer,14). Legal rules are largely immaterial at the critical stages of translation, analysis, and transmission. Law can pose considerable barriers to the pooling of intelligence, but here the barriers of agency culture, weighty lines of communication, and inadequate resources usually matter much more. Even at the stage of gathering domestic intelligence, the stage where we expect law to govern, capabilities are largely determined by non legal constraints: technical, budgetary, and human resources, the training and priorities of officers, and the organization and cultures of the relevant agencies (Schulhofer, 14). If an intelligence method suffers from key insufficiencies in these areas, anxiety with questions of legal authority can be a hazardous diversion because it will certainly prevent us from dealing with problems that may matter much more. Before centering our attention on the legal issues in detail, it is necessary to review the function they took on in the events leading up to the September 11 attacks. IMG_0001.jpg A year prior to the September 11 attacks, 54 percent of Americans were not worried that the government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms. The number grew to 67 percent two months following the attacks. According to Etzioni, this is because there had been several measures had been introduced in order to enhance safety and public fears began to reduce (National Public Radio/ Kaiser/Kennedy School). In a poll, Americans were asked, Would you be willing to give up some of the liberties we have in this country in order for the government to crack down on terrorism, or not? (Etzioni, 17) their responses tell the same story. According to Etzioni, not too soon after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April 1995, 59 percent of Americans favored giving up some liberties. After only a month following the bombing, the numbers began to reduce to 52 percent. After the terrorists attacks on September 11, that number grew to 66 percent of Americans. (ABC News/Washington Post) IMG_00 02.jpg The same responses are shown in an additional poll that asked, What concerns you most right now? That the government will fail to enact strong, new antiterrorism laws, or that the government will enact new antiterrorism laws which excessively restrict the average persons civil liberties?. Although 44 percent were worried that the government would ratify laws that would limit civil liberties in 1995, 34 percent expressed such doubts in September 2001. (Pew Center for the People and the Press) The eagerness of people to give up rights to be able to fight against terrorism, and their opinion of whether or not they will need to give up some of their own rights, is also tied to their point of fear. As Table 2 shows, an obvious majority of 59 percent of American citizens were willing to give up some liberties after the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in April 1995. When the question was asked again a month later, peoples willingness to support reductions of l iberty declined to 52 percent. A majority of the American people, 78 percent, were willing to give some of their liberty to fight against terrorism once the question was asked in a different form after the attacks on September 11. Questions about necessity as an alternative to willingness to give up liberties (Table 3) disclose a related pattern. More than six in ten Americans agreed that it was a necessary to give up some rights immediately after September 11 (Abele, 17). When the question was asked again two months later, the poll fell to five out of ten Americans IMG_0003.jpg . IMG_0004.jpg When asked about specific measures that should be taken, what needs to be done is consistent: as fear decreases, the support for safety, at any cost, remained very high. However, it declined over time. More than two-thirds of Americans were willing to give up certain rights on seven out of ten measures. IMG_0005.jpg When the same topic was asked in a different question form, the end results were the same. The percentage remained small of the amount of Americans who believed that the government had gone too far in confining civil liberties to fight against terrorism. However, it increased from eight percent to 12 percent as America experienced no new attacks and frequent new safety methods were established. The percentage of those who believed that the government did not go far enough declined somewhat. In responses to questions such as, Overall, how confident do you feel that U.S. law enforcement will use its expanded surveillance powers in what you would s ee as a proper way, under the circumstances of terrorist threats?, we see the start of a shift, the reduction in those who are very confident law enforcement will use such powers appropriately, which is less challenging than a substantial rise in those who are not confident at all. However, in March, the number of people who felt very confident fell from 34 percent to 12 percent from what it was in September, those who were not confident at all increased by a sheer two percent, well within the margin of error for such polls. (Harris) Etzioni (2004) found the following: As far as one can rely on attitudinal data that vary according to how the question is phrased, the data support the thesis that the higher the fear, the greater the willingness to curtail liberty to protect safety. And that as new safety measures are introduced, and no new attacks occur-when the governments response seems effective-fear subsides and support for democracy beings to re-increase. The fact that the support for strong anti-terrorist measures remains high reflects the fact that all of the data were collected within nine months of the attack and under frequent warnings about immanent attacks, new threats, and so on. The thesis would lead one to expect that if the panic subsides some more, the proportion of those supporting a curtailment of rights will further decline. This may seem obvious, but it surely is not so obvious to those who hold that democracy is lost by introducing new safety measures that entail some curtailment of rights. These are core elements of what protects the public and reassures it (p. 21). According to Abele, probable cause means that the government must have reasonable grounds for conducting searches and surveillances on U.S. persons. With the PATRIOT Act and FISA, probable cause is not a requirement, regardless of what the Fourth Amendment says; and only has to use suspicion for a search and seizure when it comes to terrorists threats. There are seven sections of the PATRIOT Act that deal probable cause. Under section 214, a warrant is not required when trap and trace devices are going to be used, just relevance to an ongoing terrorist investigations (Abele, 44). FBI does not have to suspect a person of performing a wrongdoing if they want to seize evidence under section 215. Section 215 allows federal investigators concerned in terrorism or national security investigation to seize any tangible things from businesses and other entities. FISA has required that specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power (Abele, 44). Section 216 says that the government uses three rubrics for probable cause when the government takes up information. The first rubric is a government software program called Carnivore which eats up an entire ISPs email. This section paves the way for a new era of national-level electronic surveillance and invest igation by federal agencies, not necessarily restricted to terrorism, less susceptible to challenge, and not subject to extensive court supervision or review (Michaels, 61). If intelligence gathering is the primary purpose, section 218 allows probable cause exceptions when wiretapping foreign agents. Under section 412, neither hearing, nor evidence production is required for jailing of immigrants. Section 412 allows suspected aliens to be detained for 7 days without charge or held for an indefinite period if determined not to be removable. Zadvydas v. Davis said that this is only constitutional if there is a chance that the person will flee or they are a danger to society. Section 505 forces anyone who has any information on a potential target of investigation to give it up, even if they are not a suspect of espionage. Under section 101 and 124, Patriot 101 violates probable cause. Section 101 gets rid of the requirement of probable cause for eavesdropping on American citizens, and calls it suspicion. Section 124 allows the government to eavesdrop on any electronic device without having to prove probable cause. The Fourth Amendment requires specificity with consideration to this eavesdropping (Edgar). The main issue with the PATRIOT Act regarding civil liberties is the right to privacy. There are 12 sections that violate a persons right to privacy. Section 203 allows federal government agencies to share the information they obtain during criminal investigations with other agencies. Section 203 abolishes virtually all of the problems to information sharing in the federal government, allowing federal agencies to share grand jury information, intercepted information, and foreign intelligence information. Roving wiretaps are allowed under section 206. Section 213 permits sneak-and-peek searches, which violates the Fourth Amendment and also Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Abele, 46). Section 213 is significant because it permits delay of n otice for an approximate reasonable period, Section 213 opens the possibility of vague secrecy warrant. Sections 214 allow pen registers and trap and trace devices. According to Chang, section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain information about any person from anyway, and also requires that a judge approves of this request. Section 216 permits tracking devices for telephone and internet dialing, routing addressing and signaling information. For intelligence gathering only, section 218 allows information gained by law enforcement to be shared. Without a court order, the surveillance of spoken communication on any type of electronic device owned by a foreign government is allowed under section 104. Under section 126, the government is allowed to get hold of financial records without gaining the persons consent, their knowledge, court order, or without judicial review. Section 128 allows administrative subpoenas. Section 303 sets up national DNA database of suspected terrorists. Lastly, section 311 federalizes information sharing between all federal agency with federal, state, and local law enforcement. According to Abele, checks and balances between the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of government provide a guarantee that governmental power will not be consolidated or abused by one branch (47). The threats to this essential construction of constitutional democracy in the U.S. may be seen in the following sections of the PATRIOT Act. Section 203 allows information sharing between the FBI, CIA, INS and other federal agencies without judicial oversight. Section 206 says that no judicial review of roving wiretaps is permitted. Section 214 requires that a judge doesnt have to issue a warrant for the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices. Section 215 requires a judge to court order seizures of any tangible thing the Justice Department requests. Section 216 requires the judge to issue a court order for pen registers and trap and trace devices. In Section 412, no court hearings are required before jailing aliens/immigrants. Finally, in section 505, no judicial review is permitted of the activities of forcing people to turn over information on other people. Due process is a part of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to follow recognized rules, and not act at random. This includes the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the right to have the state proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Fifth Amendment, in part, says: No person shall beÃÆ' ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¦deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of lawÃÆ' ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¦ (Abele, 49). These issues become relevant to the PATRIOT Act in the following ways. 411 always the government to Section 412 allows the Attorney General to hold non-citizens for up to seven days, and for additional periods of up to six months (Abele, 49) without charging him/her with criminal or immigration violation cha rges. The PATRIOT Act intrudes on Free Speech of the First Amendment in the following ways. Section 218 allows the surveillance of any U.S. person as long as its for a significant purpose. Sections 215 and 215 places gag orders on those who have been visited by the FBI. Section 412 allows the detention and deportation of any immigrant who has verbally supported a terrorist organization. Section 802 deals with domestic terrorism, which, according to Chang, is acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion (p. 45). Section 120 and 121 uses the definition of terrorism against any political protestor. Section 206 contradicts the usual protection of witnesses by the First Amendment by preventing grand jury witnesses from discussion any part of their testimony with anyone other than their lawyer. Section 411 creates 15 new death penalties. Although the PATRIOT Act cause s American citizens to give up on some of their constitutional rights, when it comes to their safety, they are willing to do it. The PATRIOT Act has allowed federal agencies to violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments of the Bill of Rights. Even with these violations, it has still been successful at protecting our homeland by preventing future terrorists attacks.