The Patriot Act-ing Like Spying On 300 million People Is Acceptable

Ivan Ornelas

Section 2

Week 6


               I mentioned either in my blog post, presentation, or both last week that one of the key factors that causes the USA to be evolved in some heavy situations is paranoia. In the Vietnam War, the USA was afraid that Communism would reign supreme in Vietnam and per the domino effect Communism would spread to the other Southeast Asian nations. Paranoia was rampant after the 9/11 attacks; our security shattered, and the lives of the people of the United States of America were changed forever. The Patriot Act was seen as a solution, and as I've been reminded a few times during this course, these situations are never as clear cut as we would like them to be. What appears to be a solution could actually be the beginning of a new problem. The Patriot Act was meant to be a solution that involved the FBI and CIA obtaining more power and resources for surveillance purposes in case future attacks developed.

              Even though this seemed like a reasonable idea for some, it is a very scary one. Privacy is something we all hold dear because the more people who you don't know or trust know about you the more that can put you in danger. It's a catch 22 because there is no ignoring that the USA has some enemies. There are few better alternatives to this to stop terrorist threats in our country. But ultimately from my understanding of how this all works, it's not feasible (financially, practically, or in some other way) to just create a list of all terrorists in the USA and only keep tabs on them. This all goes back to paranoia. There is always going to be danger but to live every day of your life anticipating that danger to the point of obsession can take a toll on a person mentally. Frankly I don't think the government has the right to be doing this. This is very similar to the lab rat treatment Americans received way back when the USA were British Colonies. It just does not seem right, it feels like a violation of our rights.

Would we be safer without the high level of government surveillance in place these days?

Shadow Hacker America

Mae Wong
Section 1
Week 6

Who is considered to be an terrorist or not? The development of the Patriot Act allows no sense of privacy for the entire nation. We do not know if we are being watched or not. America uses the Patriot Act as a scapegoat to track any suspected terrorist.  In the article, "The USA PATRIOT Act: A Sketch" by Charles Doyle, it shows the benefits of the Patriot Act. For example, it says that it helped tracked any money laundering. But, I believe it is America's way of showing that they are constantly surveying who could be a suspected terrorist that is in the country and to secretly hold white supremacy because it changes America's view of other non-white people in the nation. It would make Southeast Asians or Asians, whom were in the country previously before September 11th,  seem to be terrorists. I think the act does not solve the issue of preventing terrorism because "terrorists" will always work around the system.  

Why say America is the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" when we do not have a sense of freedom?

Abnormality and Terrorism

Soo Lee

A002

Week 6

In the article, “Monster, Terrorist, Fag: The War on Terrorism and the Production of Docile Patriots” Jasbir K. Puar and Amit S. Rai investigate a strong relationship between the notion of sexuality and gender with terrorism. By incorporating Foucault’s theory of Western construction of what is normal and abnormal, Puar and Rai explains how the construction of terriorm relies on the sexual perversity. Several important claims are made to support this theory, and one is looking at how the characteristics of monster “terrorist” are created in U.S. One component that sticks out to me is the idea of normal is created and directly associated with sexuality and gender – heteronormativity. What “normal” is constructed and protected within the realm of law within the specific(e.i. Western) sovereignty. And based on the juridical irregularity, the idea of abnormal (non-heterosexual-male identity) becomes monstrous and is subjected to corrected, demonized, and murdered.

Another way to connect the “terrorism” and sexuality is by looking at the tone and the language of these “terrorists” in our media. The representation of Osama bin Laden after 9/11 is emasculated, sodomized, and racialized, thus subjected to demonize. Then the logic follows that, going against what has been created to be “normal” in terms of sex, gender, race, and more makes one much more vulnerable to be conquered.

(This article is too amazing throughout that I am having hard time writing a summary and analyze) 

Is idea of normalcy inevitable? I acknowledge that I can only think within the frame of western knowledge of the 21^st century, which tells me that “normal” is a social construction strongly based on sex, gender, race, age, ability, and class. Then I wonder without such constructed basis, the idea of “normalcy” in different setting will still exist.

in response to "Monster, Terrorist, Fag"

Tiffany Do

ASA 2 Section 2

Week 6 Blog

In response to Puar and Rai’s article “Monster, Terrorist, Fag”:

This article talks about how heteronormativity plays a large part in the way the West understands and misrepresents the “terrorist monster.” The terrorist is depicted in ways that equate queer with sexual deviancy (126). The propaganda and field of terrorist studies is all new to me because I did not read or watch the news much (still don’t, unfortunately). Even so, I don’t find this very surprising. The U.S. needs to place people into boxes that they can understand them in. I think in the minds of people who come up with these cartoons or talk about the deviant behaviors of terrorists, they find it hard to conceptualize how a terrorist could ever have any of the same values as the “normal” people. By defining everything the terrorist is, they are defining everything that the West isn’t—much like Orientalism. These degrading and insulting images have a simplifying effect, and they undermine the terrorist and the idea that he could have any legitimacy. It seems like a very childish thing that a bully might do.

Question

What sort of impact does this have on the LGBTQIA community?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dnyWqUyWz8M/Ubfm49TrRjI/AAAAAAAAABE/geZ6xt0MdFI/s1600/tumblr_m22evrJqk21qzad3ao1_500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://raceandcomics.blogspot.com/&h=598&w=500&tbnid=Oa_ZBWIECJGLPM:&zoom=1&docid=1DKWiBIjbTA8qM&ei=6qlGVdysKYexsAWq2oHYDg&tbm=isch&ved=0CCAQMygEMAQ

The Patriot Act: The Unconstitutional and Abused Act

Bee Lee

Section 2

Week 6

The Patriot Act: The Unconstitutional and Abused Act

       The U.S. Patriot Act was passed after the terrorist attacks of September 11. It expanded the federal law enforcement’s power by allowing the FBI and the CIA to share evidence and by giving terrorism investigators access to evidence gathering tools. Although many Americans felt the act was necessary at that time as they were in fear, others started to question if it was constitutional or not.

       Reading this article, I had strong feelings about the act as I felt the sole purpose of it was to protect U.S. citizens. However as I did more research on the Patriot Act, I started to see how the act is unconstitutional; it violates the fourth amendment and the Privacy Act of 1974. If our government continues to become more authoritarian, could this act be used to suppress the voice of the people and “patriots who wants to live free?” 

As Senator Bernie Sanders stated, "We can fight terrorism without undermining the basic principle and constitutional rights such as the constitution. We do not need legislation, such as the Patriot Act which allows government agents, access to files of American libraries and book sellers without probable cause. We do not need legislation which makes Americans nervous as to whether the U.S. government will be looking over their shoulder in terms of the books they are reading or internet sites they are visiting in a library. We do not need legislation which makes librarians and book stores owners complicit with government in spying on their neighbors. In the United States of America, with our history, with our constitution, with our bill of rights, and with our respect of freedom, we can and must do better than that." 

      

The PATRIOT Act

Kevin Wang

ASA 2 Section 2

Week 6

The PATRIOT Act

The PATRIOT Act was passed immediately after the 9/11 attacks. It was a response to the attacks and many congressmen passed it because their incumbents may view them as ‘against America’. Whether or not the PATRIOT Act is necessary is still controversial. It is easy to measure how many attacks got past the system and much harder to measure how many attacks were prevented. It is not fair to attack the PATRIOT Act as ineffective simply because it’s hard to measure ‘what could have happened’.

But at the same time, a different issue arises about the privacy of US citizens. The values and rights the Constitution promises includes many things, but the explicit statement of ‘privacy’ is not there. There are many parts of the Constitution that give rights involving privacy-related topics. I believe that           in this new age of information, older laws and documents about the rights of citizens need to be reevaluated. Things such as privacy when browsing the internet, messaging, and calling are new but necessary. An interesting hypothetical question came up: If the PATRIOT act and similar legislation turned out to have been stopping hundreds of terrorist attacks, would we still be against it? Or would it still be unjustifiable under human rights? 

The Patriot Act

Week 6

Qimin Li

Section 2

                I found the article about the USA Patriot Act to be very informative in the way that the U.S. had to pass another act in order modify many of the procedures intended to protect the privacy of its citizens. Since the attack occurred on the other side of the U.S., and when I was only a child, I have a vague recollection on what exactly I was doing and feeling at that moment in time. However, what I do remember was this strong hatred towards Muslims or anyone affiliated with that country, culture or race. It got to the point where there were incidents of murder and violence towards these American citizens, and they were labeled as a terrorist by being racially profiled. But I feel like this isn’t uncharacteristic of the government to take an extra step when it comes to protecting the country. For instance, the attack on Pearl Harbor led to our entry into World War II. The aftermath of this was detaining Japanese-American citizens and placing them into internment camps, fearing they were spies or would turn on America. This situation is very similar to how the U.S. handled terrorist attacking our homeland.

So my question is, how can the government protect its citizens without encroaching on their rights?