HERE ARE THE DIRECTIONS TO YOUR FIRST SHORT ESSAY QUESTION. The topic on which you must write is below. Here are my criteria for this assignment: 1. Your essay should be double-spaced, and checked for grammar and proper spelling. It must be NO MORE than three pages double-spaced. 2. Excellent essays (i.e. "A" work) is well-written, presented in an organized fashion (use of subtitles, etc. are up to the individual student), and show the use of a variety of class sources which are properly cited. You should strive, to the extent you are able, to integrate the textbook readings (from both We the People and A Guide to the US Constitution), as well as any current affairs articles, into your answers. 3. Most important: Do the best you can. Remember that while there are no "right" or "wrong" answers on this assignment (as with the Discussion Board), there are excellent, good, average, and below-average answers. If I believe you have written an exemplary Essay Assignmment 1 answer, I will email you a request to publish your work to our class. Good luck! (No late papers please; see my syllabus policies for any questions) 4. IMPORTANT: You MUST attach a WORD file to Essay Assignment #1 (Absolutely NO emailed essays will be accepted). Your file must be named with your first and last name, followed by Essay 1. EXAMPLE: "Angela.Romero.Essay 1." Failure to comply with this (basic) file naming directions will result in a 0 on this assignment. Essay Assignment 1: The USA PATRIOT Act The objective of civil liberties is to create a “private sphere” in which individuals are autonomous and free from government interference. There is also a presumption that people have the right to be left alone, to have privacy. Few would argue, however, that the right of privacy is absolute. No right is absolute, and we regularly compromise our privacy in return for something we value even more. Every new communications technology reduces our privacy. Note how casually we compromise our private lives every time we use our credit cards, subscribe to a periodical, run a red light, or send and receive e-mails, whether for business, personal, confidential, or illegal affairs. Even our Social Security and bank account numbers are up for grabs. The most ardent civil libertarian would find it difficult to disagree with former Attorney General John Ashcroft when he said that “ liberty is meaningless without security,” in his defense of the USA PATRIOT Act. War is the most fundamental threat to liberty. President Lincoln abruptly and unilaterally suspended the power of our judiciary to issue writs of habeas corpus (requiring a show of cause why an individual is in custody). President Washington, as well as Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, set up military tribunals to try, without right of counsel, persons believed to be collaborators with, or merely sympathizers of, the enemy. Most dramatically, in 1942 Presidential Roosevelt ordered over 120,000 Japanese Americans (most of them U.S. citizens) to internment camps for the duration of World War II, without consulting Congress and without accusing the internees of any sort of crime. Six weeks after September 11, 2001, President Bush submitted to Congress the USA PATRIOT Act—“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.” The 342-page act gave the federal government power over many different types of beliefs and associations as well as over activities that could be interpreted as sympathetic to terrorism from whatever source. Although Americans across the ideological spectrum are still willing to support the USA PATRIOT Act as a hedge against terrorism, there is also an unmistakable growth of opposition to many of its provisions, especially those that give the attorney general immense discretionary power to detain and imprison “on suspicion” and to use information technology to engage in “fishing expeditions” within the United States, as though America were a foreign country. In 2001 many politicians voted for the act as an emergency measure and accompanied their support with the assertion that the act “can be fixed” by Justice Department interpretations, by judicial review, and even by Congress itself. Many of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act came under a “ sunset clause” that provided for their termination in 2005. In 2006, Congress voted to extend these provisions but also added several new provisions designed to protect civil liberties. Both American liberals and American conservatives fear an excessively strong state. If we give up the “eternal vigilance” Jefferson counseled as the price of liberty, we will be giving the terrorists their victory without their having to fire another shot or explode another suicide bomb. For Critical Analysis Write a three-page double-spaced essay in which you answer the following questions: 1. In what ways can civil liberties protections and concerns about national security come into conflict? 2. What should be the proper balance between liberty and security? Where does the USA PATRIOT Act fall on this spectrum? Do you agree with John Ashcroft that civil libertarians concerned about lost liberties “threatened by the USA PATRIOT Act are just aiding terrorists”? Why or why not?