Domestic Suveillance by the Nsa is justified
I have a quote from the National Security Agency, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Resolve: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms. From Oxford dictionary, I have a definition of privacy: freedom from unauthorized intrusion. The 4th Amendment from the constitution, “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." According to Cornell University Law School, the 4th amendment “prohibits generalized searches, unless extraordinary circumstances place the general public in danger.”
Contention 1: Domestic surveillance does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution was purposely made loosely, and one hole of that looseness is the right to privacy. It is faulty to argue that domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrant is unjust because the Bill of Rights does not protect privacy. The 4th amendment does not specifically bring up the right to privacy, leaving it to be implied. Thus, implying that you have the right to privacy also means that it is NOT guaranteed. Privacy is understood as a human right, but it is not a government protected right. Therefore, domestic surveillance does not violate any laws, especially not under the Constitution.
Contention 2: Domestic surveillance is justified as a defensive tactic against potential enemies. Domestic surveillance has already been used to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States. According to the NSA Intelligence officials, “the government’s sweeping surveillance efforts helped thwart “potential terrorist events” more than 50 times since 9/11.” This demonstrates how surveillance is an effect method in anti-terrorist tactics and should be continued to ensure our national
Contention 1: Domestic surveillance does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution was purposely made loosely, and one hole of that looseness is the right to privacy. It is faulty to argue that domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrant is unjust because the Bill of Rights does not protect privacy. The 4th amendment does not specifically bring up the right to privacy, leaving it to be implied. Thus, implying that you have the right to privacy also means that it is NOT guaranteed. Privacy is understood as a human right, but it is not a government protected right. Therefore, domestic surveillance does not violate any laws, especially not under the Constitution.
Contention 2: Domestic surveillance is justified as a defensive tactic against potential enemies. Domestic surveillance has already been used to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States. According to the NSA Intelligence officials, “the government’s sweeping surveillance efforts helped thwart “potential terrorist events” more than 50 times since 9/11.” This demonstrates how surveillance is an effect method in anti-terrorist tactics and should be continued to ensure our national