Debate Speech
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, 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. (Amendment IV)
Freedom vs. Safety. Ever since September 11, 2001 this debate has thickened and come to the surface, now
with new meaning. When the twin towers fell the American citizens demanded more safety, but at what cost? Our country
fought for our freedom in the Revolutionary War, when we obtained it we were overjoyed, but now it seems as if the American public
has taken our freedom for granted. Can you imagine an America where the police could be anywhere? In a bus, a mall, a changing room,
or even your house without your knowledge. Innocent people can be arrested just because they're different, unlike the "average" citizen. Do you
really want to be so safe you can't live? These are only some of the many reasons why I am for freedom.
To begin with, every since the attacks our country was turned around and changes had to be made everywhere…especially
in the airports. But when is it too much? Now in some of the larger airports you are not allowed to have curbside check in, which is
really inconvenient for some people who have trouble carrying their luggage through the airport ("should pilots"). Also, the metal detector frequencies
have been turned up so high that in some areas it has picked up the under wire in bras, and some of the metal on braces. This precaution was used
to stop people sneaking less metal objects through the detectors and on to the plane. But, this doesn't make much sense because the weapons that
were used to hijack the planes on September 11th were plastic box-cutters, not metal anything. The original frequency was at a perfect level for picking up things
that were dangerous, not for picking up nail clippers, under wire, braces, etc…My plan to fix this was to lower the frequency down to the original frequency, and if necessary
place hidden silent ones around so if a person did manage to sneak something passed the first ones they would unknowingly set of a silent one hidden in
another part. Plus, since the hijackers were of Arab descent many people who look like Arabs are being detained so they miss their planes or even denied access to them.
This is a direct result from to much safety. Because we want to be safe we are stopping people without much reason except that they look a certain way.
Did the American public know that because they wanted to protect themselves they hurt others? Our plan to lessen racial profiling is to have a closer look
into the cases that are brought up that involve racial profiling and the firing of people who do it frequently.
Secondly, vast surveillance upgrades have been requested. Granted some ideas are widely accepted. For instance, the way
we now do "tapping" of phones is: A warrant must be obtained from a magistrate ("airport"). The warrant applies to a specific phone, so if the suspect uses
another phone, they need to get another warrant. The act that was proposed was to make it a "roving tap" where the warrant is attached
to a person and not a phone ("airport"). This is a fine plan that makes sense with the apparent use of cell phones in today's world. But there are
others that are not so widely liked. In example, many people disagree the proposed Internet surveillance upgrade ("airport"). This plan is to treat
the information that a government official gets from the Internet (emails, URLS, etc…) should be used like a phone tapping system. I think this is a bad
idea because you can get more information from the internet then a phone, where the only thing you get is numbers). Also, the government is making Internet
service providers install so called carnivore software ("airport"). These programs will intercept all communications by seeking specific words. Plus, the
government is allowing the courts to use outside evidence from another country, whether or not they collect it within the USA's restrictions. The government is
trying to control everything that goes on in the Internet and I think this violates our right to use something privately.
Our opposing team brought up Motorcycle helmets as an argument for their side, but I know of many incidences where the helmet has caused the
lives of many people not including the wearer. When someone wears a helmet they feel safer and as more inclined to do crazy, and dangerous
stunts that end up hurting others or themselves. I am not against the use of helmets I am against people telling me I must wear one. Also, they keep
bringing up the World trade centers and how we need to protect ourselves from further attacks. To have safety you need to have complete safety not
minimum coverage in some areas and over protection in others. I think they are focusing on only one case of terrorism, and neglecting to see the other acts.
These are only some of the many reasons that I am for freedom. This country, that our forefathers fought and died for,
is at a crucial point in it's life. It is the fork in the road where we as Americans must decided if we value our safety or our freedom more.
The freedom that was fought for, and that we now take for granted. I am not saying I don't want freedom, I am saying I want to live the American dream…
to be free.
Bibliography
________. "Should Pilots be Armed?" Issues and Controversies. Nov. 9, 2001: ? . Dec. 1, 2001 www.zfacts.com/icof/search/ib602390.asp
_______, Teri. "Freedom and Rights", Nov. 9, 2001: ? Nov. 28, 2001.
Bill of Rights. © 1993, Grolier Electronic Publishing.
__________. "Airport Security" Issues and Contoversies. Nov. 9, 2001. Nov. 30, 2001. www.2facts.com/icof/search/ib602390.asp
Bob Evans. "Freedom vs. Security", Nov. 5, 2001: ? ?
