If the EPA president would introduce new laws and regulations, and enforce them it might make a difference. In the past when laws and regulations weren’t enforced it didn’t get them anywhere. IF they were to either enforce ones that they already have, or create new laws and regulations they might find that it will make a difference.
Lobbying Congress would get more stringent environmental regulations. With the federal court they would only pass what the plaintiffs want and it would be harder to get more passed on the issue. Lobbying the President and the EPA would be a good Idea because it would raise attention to the issue and would bring more awareness. It could also enforce more laws and would help regulate the laws that are already in the books. Experience hasn’t demonstrated that these methods don’t work. We also can’t rely on past experiences that it wont work because new information and more people who want these laws to pass fight and bring attention to them. Lobbying is a good way to get attention to the subject. It could also help pass a lot more laws dealing with the environment.
Founded in 1978, Global Rights is a human rights capacity-building organization working in partnership with local activists in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to promote and protect the rights of marginalized populations. Through broad-based technical assistance and training, they strengthen partners to document and expose human rights abuses, conduct community outreach and mobilization, advocate for legal and policy reform, and provide legal and paralegal services.The work of Global Rights is motivated by their vision of a just society worldwide built on the fundamental principles of human rights. The critical forces for achieving deep-rooted and sustainable change in societies come from within each nation. Human rights cultures are built from the ground up. They focus on strategies that are essential to promoting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights such as documenting and exposing violations, conducting community education and mobilization, advocating legal and policy reform, using the courts on behalf of disadvantaged populations, and engaging the international community, including the United Nations and regional bodies. Global Rights is governed by a sixteen-member board of directors comprising senior lawyers, journalists, and academics and operated by a 60-member staff, two-thirds of whom work outside the United States. They have many files on the places they work in and the rights that need to be fixed. They don’t want to be recorded because they have information about cases that are waiting to be solved and if the information got into the wrong hands they would be in trouble and might be stopped and they need to fight for their cause.
Human Right Watch is one of the world’s leading independent organizations in effort to help defend and protect human rights. They hold people oppressors accountable for their crimes. They target advocacy to build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. They also challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights laws.
Human Rights Watch is a great opportunity for people who have been put into prison, for example, for a mass amount of time for no apparent reason to help them get out of the situation. These people are out there to help but if they are trying to keep people out of danger, the government can not barge in because of the privacy rules. The government may think that they are not giving away evidence but things sometimes slip through the cracks. This one time could end up costing someone’s life. The Human Rights Watch was made special for this reason so that information would not be let out for people to hear about. The American government does not need to know what is going on in someone’s life unless they are asked to. The information the Human Rights Watch is dealing with may not even be from the United States which is another reason government should not have any ties to it. Every person has a right to keep their information to themselves. The people working for Human Rights Watch were chosen for a reason, the government needs to let them do their job.
We agree that more national security is needed to help prevent another terrorist attack. The government should not be able to over use the new provisions, they still have to respect our privacy.
Sec. 215 allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations. This has positives and negatives. It makes it easier for the U.S. to detect terrorist attacks, but this could also be used against innocent patrons.
Sec. 213 allows “sneak and peek” search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. There are also pros and cons to this. This can allow authorities to search the property of drug dealers and other criminals without notice and seize illegal things. This is good, but these act are supposed to help prevent terror crimes, not just try to take out random criminals.
We think that these provisions adequately balance the need to protect civil liberties against the need for robust in national security. Yes there is an appropriate balance between national security and civil liberties. However we need to make sure that the balance continues. I don’t think that the balance shift during wartime unless there has been a threat made on the United States during war. We think that the PATRIOT Act is a good thing but we need to make sure that we keep it balanced between national security and civil liberties. We don’t need the national security to interfere big time in our civil liberties or the other way around.
Up until 1967, the government was free to wiretap whenever they wanted to until the Supreme Court addressed the issue. Congress passed the Wiretap Act in 1968. Now the government can not wiretap unless they have a plausible reason to do so. This creates what is called the “secret court.” I think that this is one of the best Acts the United States has passed. Everybody’s personal information does not need to be told to the whole world, including the government. Just because they head America does not mean they have to know everything. In fact, most of the time we Americans never know the actual truth because there are always lies within the government. I think that if we were to open everything up so that it is “ethical, legal, and proper” it could affect someone/countries case. We have secret services to protect us from other foreign countries. Our national security depends on programs like these. This is a way for information to get across to people. If we didn’t have these services we would have never survived Iraq or captured Osama Bin Laden. The government has a right to keep information private from the people of the same country. They contain vital information about other countries that could affect us if it were to go public. We do have to be concerned that other countries could be wiretapping us. With our technology in the world nowadays it can be very easy for someone to do so. It is a risky deal but if everything runs smoothly it can have great success.Clapper v. Amnesty International Write Your Opinion
Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights. The government should not be able to wiretap them. They are trying to make the world a better place. The fourth Amendment says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This is saying that they have to have probable in order to even search a place. The government has no probable cause of Amnesty International doing anything. Just because they talk to people outside of the United States does not mean they’re planning terrorist acts. The government should not be able to wiretap Amnesty International, and if they do they should at least let them know.
In the Boumediene versus Bush the court said that alleged terrorists must be given some way of challenging the legality of their detention. The government never gave Amnesty a way of challenging. In the Laird v. Tatum case they sued the army for partially violating their First Amendment rights of free speech. They think they violated their rights because the Army was taking too much private information. In the City of Los Angeles v. Lyons case Adolph Lyons accused the LAPD for putting him in a chokehold after a traffic stop. The court couldn’t do anything about it because Lyons couldn’t prove that chokehold was against the LAPD policy. In the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife case a group of environmentalists sued the Department of the Interior due to policies that would affect habitats of some animals. The court didn’t do anything because they didn’t have proof that they were going back to study these animals.