Hi Ben
Good start! There is still a lot of combining and condensing that can happen in your
(para)graphs and tried to give you some examples below. That tends to happen when
people are writing stream of consciousness; maybe using an outline to structure each
graph or reread each graph, knowing you can combine more may be a good strategy to
develop.
I think you have some solid reasons for and against, but it seems the reasons for using
this tech are stronger as this is written. Some questions below to help form the side
against.
Content/Ideas – 6/12
Organization – 6/8
Grammar – 5/8
Self Evaluation – this will be on the final – as you will need to self-eval your own paper.
Total – 17/28 (remember that this grade is not recorded, it is letting you know where you
are at as of today. If you follow the guidelines advised below, as well as in the
instructions, you should get a near perfect grade when you submit your final paper)
So what now? You need to take and address these comments and questions for your
revised, graded essay this week. If you have any questions, please let us know!
Domestic Surveillance, the act of spying on natives of your own
country.(fragment. Could use a better hook to draw the reader in – why do I want to read
this?) Tapped phones, bugs, intercepted mail all are technologies used in this act. Sounds
like the typical action/adventure movie, but, the movie may be closer to the truth then
you might think (good – maybe expand on this for hook). Domestic Surveillance is
happening right here in our great country of the United States. In our latest war on
terrorism, the President of the United States authorized the tapping of phones and
intercepting of electronic messages. This was done without a warrant or an agreement by
a federal judge. The government has used its power and control to deny us our
constitutional right to privacy. Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and morally
wrong, and the government has no right to disrespect the privacy of its American citizens
without a reason and a warrant. There are some who say that domestic surveillance is a
necessity and that it is used to help safeguard our country from terrorist threats. But, what
kind of country would America be if the elected government can invade our privacy and
disrespect the boundaries set down by our forefathers. (this is a question, make it a
statement and tell us that America would lose its greatness)
The issue of domestic surveillance is surrounded by controversy. Many people
believe that it is a necessary aspect of government. In 2001, in response to the September
11th, 2001 9/11 attacks on the twin towers, congress granted the President powers that
would help him counter other acts of terrorism. This act has become known as the Patriot
act. This act granted our government to, among other things, tap phone wires and
intercept electronic messages without a federal warrant. Many believe that this was and
still is needed to help keep our country safe from terrorist attacks. After the Patriot Act
was passed, not one significant act of terrorism occurred in the United States. Many think
that our government‟s constant surveillance of suspected terrorists and traitors is what
keeps us safe and secure. Also, many acts of terrorism are thwarted because the terrorist
knows that the government could find out what it is and stop it. They are too afraid of
getting caught, that they do not even start planning the attack. Also, the tapping of phones
has allowed the government to listen to conversations involving anything that may be
threatening to the wellbeing of our nation. Since this act was passed, 505 people have
been deported for a terrorism related crime. Domestic surveillance may be something that
some people think is helping our country, but many others are against it and the Patriot
Act. (lot of small reasons in this graph, maybe focus on 1 or 2)
Domestic Surveillance may sound like a huge help to our government. Many
believe that it brings justice to terrorists and keeps our country safe and out of harm.
However, Domestic Surveillance is morally and constitutionally wrong. The fourth
amendment of the Constitution of the United States guards against unreasonable search
and seizures. This amendment requires a judicially sanctioned search warrant to be
obtained with a probable cause to back it up in order to listen or take information. The
Patriot Act has given the government power over the high power of the constitution. The
government has taken their domestic surveillance projects pass boundaries that should
never be crossed. By using Domestic Surveillance in involvement with the Patriot Act,
the government is disrespecting and going against the constitution. Domestic
Surveillance is also morally wrong (seems new idea by using “also” and introducing
“moral” – basically what you seem to be saying is it is against the constitution literally
and in spirit/trust – try organizing this graph around that idea. Although people need to
trust the govt too). The people of this nation should be trusted by their government. After
all, was it not once said that the government is for the people and by the people. The use
of domestic surveillance is showing blatant mistrust of the people of this country. Our
government should show that it cares about the people and give them the chance to do the
right thing without spying on them (how does a govt protect and trust people? If 1 kid in
school brings in a weapon, does the school now need to suspect all kids and put up a
metal detector? Are you are saying they should not spy on all people, just suspected
individuals? How do you get „suspicious‟ individuals w/o listening in?). Domestic
surveillance is also immoral because it takes away peoples right to privacy. By listening
in on our phone conversations and looking at our messages, the government is messing
with(jargon, not formal) business that they have no right to be messing with. Even if the
government suspects that a person is going to commit an act of terrorism, they still need a
warrant to listen in on your conversations. Also, they should not reasonably be able to
charge you with anything if you have only talked about doing an act of terrorism. You
have not technically done anything punishable by law, so the government won‟t be able
to arrest you without further evidence. Domestic surveillance will always violate a
persons constitutional rights and it is morally wrong.
Domestic surveillance began mostly after 9/11 with the passing of the Patriot Act.
But, has it really helped the country fight against terrorism? Throughout the history of the
U.S, since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been very few major terrorist
attacks on U.S soil. After the Patriot Act was passed, there were still very few acts, but
there were some. Domestic Surveillance failed to stop them all (thought you said above
that there were none…). Also, there were more major terrorist attacks after the Patriot
law was passed in just two and a half years, than there had been in the entire nineties.
Domestic Surveillance has done virtually nothing to protect us, and has just weakened
our nation with distrust. It is wasting our funds on a project that is not very effective. So
far, the United States government has only arrested one man for terrorist related crimes,
and he was arrested before the actual act took place. Overall, domestic surveillance is not
really helping our country, it is merely weakening us and wasting our time and funding.
(this seems like a summary graph vs a separate argument. Maybe find some additional
evidence or ideas why DS is not good or break up the middle graph)
As you can see, domestic surveillance, all though useful in some cases, is not a
good tool of our government‟s. It violates a persons writes and is morally wrong. It also
has not really produced any real evidence that it is helping to rid our country of the threat
of terrorism. Domestic Surveillance does not benefit our country. It should not be used
without valid reason and warrant. The Patriot Act should be revoked and we should start
to deal with the real threat overseas. I believe that the government should show its morals
and discontinue the act of domestic surveillance because it violates our writes to privacy.
(this last graph has a lot of typos…)