"calls illegally intercepted by foreign governments as evidence in US courts" (Huntley .
no pg). It is hard to think that the Attorney General could be as unethical as to have .
foreign nations do our dirty work for us. If this is such a good idea, why bother going to .
foreign nations? Sarah Huntley believes, "Ashcroft's proposal would encourage US .
police to circumvent the Constitution and to use foreign governments, like Canada, to .
illegally tap phones in this country" (no pg). We have already taken away so many of the .
freedoms that our nation was built upon. No one has complained to this day because they .
seem reasonable. In comparison, so many of Ashcroft's proposals attack the pure core of .
our nation and what it stands for. Instead of protecting citizens, these absurd proposals .
would in reality be giving the terrorists the win by letting our country become just as .
oppressive. .
In the September 27th editorial section of the Los Angeles Times, University of .
Southern California, Political Science professor, Erwin Chermerinsky agrees with many .
people, that despite the nation's current situation, it would be a mistake to "give the .
government sweeping new authority to eavesdrop and monitor communication in the .
United States" (7). Going along with Ashcroft's proposal would be a deep invasion into .
citizens personal lives and would not only be unnecessary but intrusive. "This loss of .
privacy would not do much to enhance security" (Chermerinsky 7). Would anything .
really be that much different today if these laws had been put in effect two years ago? .
Probably not, in fact what is really needed is a change in our Intelligence department. .
Had the United States put more effort and time into developing our nation's intelligence, .
perhaps they could have discovered some clues to prevent or lessen the September 11th .
tragedy.
One of the most cherished American freedoms is the freedom of movement, the .