Patriot Act & Homeland Security Act and Cyber Crime

 

 

Prior to beginning work on this discussion read the Fong and Delaney (2013) (Links to an external site.) article and the Mitchell and Pate online resource (Links to an external site.).

The destruction of the World Trade Towers, the attack on the Pentagon, and the crashing of Flight 93 in September 2001 changed the ways in which the United States sought to protect itself from enemies and criminals, both foreign and domestic. The two landmark criminal justice federal laws enacted after the attacks were the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act (HSA). This week our discussion examines both the Patriot Act and the HSA and their applications to cyber crime investigations. Students will explore provisions of both Acts and explain how they assist in cyber-crime deterrence and prosecution.

Your initial posts will be divided into two groups. Please see the instructions below to determine which topics you must include in your 400 word minimum initial post.

Last names beginning with the letters A through L
Address the following issues in your initial post:

Explain the major provisions of the Patriot Act which assist the U.S. government in deterring cyber crimes.
Point out at least one example of how the Patriot Act can be used as an effective tool in investigating cyber crimes.
Evaluate whether or not the Patriot Act violates traditional notions of privacy found in the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Department of Justice`s first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since its passage following the September 11. 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part, and often the leading role, in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life. The Act improves the counter-terrorism efforts in several significant ways: it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking; and facilitating information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better “connect the dots.”

lth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.

Jus in bello

The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323).
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier doe

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.