"Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security."
With the political climate today, it is of the utmost importance that we do what we can to keep our country safe through political, economic, and social changes. But how can we go in the name of safety? Can we send military through citizens’ houses on any sneaking suspicion they may be a traitor? Can we assign all power to one or a few individuals who supposedly have the country’s best intentions at heart? Or how about ____? The statement asks if it would be justifiable for governments to circumvent civil laws if it is done only out of necessity for our national security. I believe in certain cases, it may be reasonable for a government to circumvent civil law, however, there must be a formal structure in its place for the new state of transitional government in the name of national security. We cannot leave any room for ambiguity for ambiguity carves a window for power-hungry leaders to rise and take advantage amidst the confusion.
History is meaningful to us because it also simultaneously holds answers for the future. And history has shown us that when the government takes complete control during “wartime” environments, it has the great potential to turn into a dictatorial reign. The most obvious and tragic example would be the rise of Hitler. Hitler used the public’s own fear for his own gain. He understood that the people needed trust and faith and used those very tools as stepping stools for his exponential rise to power. This was augmented by an overwhelming sense of national pride that was accumulating in Germany and many other countries around the world at this time. Once in power, Hitler used the excuse of national security to begin his dictatorship. And thus began the most tragic (REPLACE), lugubrious genocide in our history, The Holocaust. Hitler’s example shows us that humans, and political leaders in general must be kept in check. Some leaders look for opportunities like the ones the prompt mentions to grasp at any power they can.
It is facile for governments to declare the actions they take are for the protection of national security. Most people do not understand intricate politics or economics to poke out any holes in the government’s argument. More importantly, during a national security threat, no one particularly even cares to. This is the fundamental reason why we cannot let the government act on its own, unchecked. The government (atleast of the US) was created for the people and by the people. If they act without the consultation of the people or transparency that was promised to the people, then the power of a few could grow.
I am not pushing for the government to follow all civil laws to the last word during a state of national emergency, I am simply calling for a set of patent, detailed laws that will take the place of civil laws during a national threat. These laws should be vetted through a rigorous process by several different viewpoints to guarantee that there will always be a check in power and the personal freedoms of everyone is preserved. It is clear that if the role of government during a dangerous time is undefined, that there will always be chances for power to fall into the wrong hands.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-04 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2022-11-12 | Swarnali Swarno | 50 | view |
| 2022-11-12 | Swarnali Swarno | 75 | view |
| 2022-10-15 | srilakshmip05 | 33 | view |
| 2022-08-08 | ojehparvaz | 58 | view |
- Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security 58
- The following is from a recent email from the Diord Corp Human Resources Manager Tobor Technologies found that mental health problems and mental illness were responsible for about 15 percent of employee sick days Tobor amended its employee insurance plan 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 830, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'for ambiguity'.
Suggestion: for ambiguity
...onal security. We cannot leave any room for ambiguity for ambiguity carves a window for power-hungry leader...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1031, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...entions to grasp at any power they can. It is facile for governments to declare ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 297, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'several'.
Suggestion: several
...be vetted through a rigorous process by several different viewpoints to guarantee that there will...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, may, so, then, thus, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 33.0505617978 151% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2658.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 548.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8503649635 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8270343914 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 279.0 215.323595506 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509124087591 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 840.6 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.9727865209 60.3974514979 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4444444444 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2962962963 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.25925925926 5.21951772744 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.205800239629 0.243740707755 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0506164311591 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0693860343325 0.0758088955206 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12860415961 0.150359130593 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0414801718819 0.0667264976115 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.1392134831 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.1639044944 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.