princeton review practice essay

[dicapino]

Government are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to protection of national security.

Is it pertinent for governments to break civil laws in the name of national security? While proponents of this assertions proudly asservate that the common good is of more importance than the individual good, others aver that such acts promotes illegality and impunity. I believe that it is both amoral and illegal for government to circumvent civil laws because it is undemocratic, and it can lead to autocracy and despotism.

 

 

Although the national security of a nation of great importance in this century that has engendered dire security problems, for example, terrorism, it is still illegitimate for governments or their security agencies to circumvent rights of innocuous civilians in favour of national security interests.

 

 

It is undemocratic for governments to break civil laws since it infringes on the rights of citizens. Government are placed in power to protect these rights and not degrade them, promoting such acts defeats and betrays the rubrics of democracy. For example, the revelations of the NSA scandal showed the wide scale impunity of the agency; from listening into personal conversations, to bugging homes, and reading messages and various other sordid acts all in the name of national security. If such acts are important measures that must be taken to thwart terrorist attacks, are over 50 million civilians terrorists? Civil laws should not be circumvented because of the protection of national security.

 

 

Furthermore, if such acts are not checked and halted it could precipitate our present democracy to a system of autocracy and despotism. If such powers are left in the hands of individuals or groups it could be used for their personal agenda. The worldwide outrage at sordid details of the NSA scandals have raised suggestions that the US government has taken to a path of impunity and even compared this with SS secret agency of East Germany who were involved in spying and threatening thousands of civilians within that territory just before the fall of the Berlin wall.

 

 

In summary, governments are not justified by breaking civil laws when they do so in the interest of national security. Such impunity is undemocratic and promotes despotism and autocracy. Although security is germane to the general well being of a nation, government should thread a thin line between ensuring national safety and breaking civil laws.

[awells27]

Government are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to protection of national security.

Is it pertinent justified for governments to break civil laws in the name of national security? While proponents of this assertions proudly asservate position claim that the common good is of more importance than the individual good, others aver that such acts promotes an illegality abuse of power.and impunity (impunity is something people claim for themselves rather than something that is promoted). I believe that it is both amoral and illegal for a government to circumvent civil laws because it is a violation of democracy undemocratic,   and it which can potentially lead to autocracy and despotism.

 

 

Although the national security of a nation has proven to be of great importance in this century, which that has witnessed engendered dire security problems such as, for example, terrorism, it is still illegitimate unwarranted for governments or their security agencies to circumvent the rights of innocuous innocent civilians in favour of national security interests.

 

 

It is undemocratic for governments to break civil laws, as such actions since it infringes upon the rights of citizens. Government are placed in power to protect these rights and not degrade them; promoting such acts defeats and betrays the rubrics the fundamental nature of democracy. For example, the revelations of the NSA scandal showed revealed the wide-scale impunity of the agency; : listening into eavesdropping (most appropriate word for this type of spying) on personal conversations, bugging homes, and reading messages, and various other intrusive sordid (sordid does not relate to invasion of privacy) acts all in the name of national security. If such acts are important measures that must be taken  for to thwarting terrorist attacks, are over 50 million civilians terrorists? Civil laws should not be circumvented because of the  in order to protect ofion  national security.

 

 

Furthermore, if such acts are not checked and halted, it could gradually lead precipitate our present democracy toward a system of autocracy and despotism. If such authority powers are is left in the hands of powerful individuals or groups, it could be used for their personal agenda. The worldwide outrage at sordid details of the NSA scandals have has raised suggestions that the US government has claimed taken to a path of impunity, leading to comparisons and even compared this with the SS secret agency of East Germany, who were was involved in spying on and threatening thousands of civilians within that territory just before the fall of the Berlin wall.

 

 

In summary, governments are not justified by breaking civil laws when they do so in the interest of national security.  Acting with such impunity is undemocratic both violates democracy and promotes despotism and autocracy. Although security is germane to the general well being of a nation, government should thread a thin line between ensuring national safety and breaking civil laws.

Sorry to be so harsh.  Think of organizing your essay as follows:  opening paragraph introduces your argument and gives 3-4 reasons in support of your argument.  Then each paragraph discusses one of your reasons and gives a relevant example.  Then, your concluding paragraph summarizes what you wrote and gives some sort of future implication (autocracy and despotism) of what you are arguing.  I can sympathize with having English as a second language.  For now, work on subject-verb agreement and finding sentences in real articles that use your vocabulary words.  The NY TImes has a search engine that does this.  

[dicapino]

Awells thanks for the advice. working on my sentence construction, i just got a book on grammar. Thanks again. Hope you can critique other essays form just like this one.