Aaron Tisack- ACLU

1. I agree with the ACLU in this debate because this constant spying on individuals by the government is protected under the 4th amendment in tandem with katz v. US.

2. The NSA has been wiretapping anyone supposedly related to any terrorist activities. This is because of the 9/11 attacks and the madness that ensued after that. The Patriot Act has given the NSA the power to do almost whatever they want. The ACLU is calling the NSA on this and is attempting to get the Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional and to stop the NSA from such constant spying.

3. The 4th amendment stops the government from unreasonable search and seizure. Despite the threat of terrorism, this does not allow the government to spy on anyone they damn well please. Also, katz v. US establishes that a phone call is just as private as a conversation meaning that it is protected by the 4th amendment.

4. 1. Protecting from terrorism is reason enough to ignore the 4th amendment.

2. Many drastic measure must be taken to protect from the threat of terrorism.

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVPRxtyRfLc

Big Debate

NSA does have the right to do warrantless wiretapping because it is done so with the nation's best interest in mind.

The National Security Agency uses wiretapping to stop the war on terror. No information found about any individual may be used against them unless they are considered a threat to national security. Even then, the information found only lead to further investigations.

Some will argue that this violates the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable search and seizure. However, NSA looks only at people who are suspected to be related to Al Qaeda. This means that there is probable cause to wiretap these individuals, which makes it constitutional.

Big Debate: ACLU v. NSA

ACLU v. NSA
(individual rights v. national security)

My stance on debate:
The Executive Branch does not have the authority/power to spy on Americans without a court warrant in order to stop the war on terror because it is unreasonable search and seizure to the American people, along with violation of privacy.

Background:
After 9/11 fear of terrorism rose and the Bush administration took action by implementing a National Security Agency that wire tapped in to phone calls and email. This was discovered in 2005 and in the following year the ALCU defeated the Bush administration's spying program (NSA) yet the next year, their decision was overturned by the 6th Circuit.

Evidence:
Violation of 4th Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.) Violation of privacy and unreasonable search.

Counterpoints:
The President has the authority to protect the nation in order to do so he can (by implied powers) tap into conversations. Patriot Act allows agency's to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records in order to regulate the war on terror.

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ Ann Beeson argues on the ACLU side about Congress's need to stop tapping into Americans. She believes that the President is not above the law, ordinary Americans should not be tapped, and Americans need reassurance that they can do their jobs (lawyers, etc.).

1) The Executive Branch does not have the authority/power to spy on Americans without a warrant in order to stop the war on terror because it is unreasonable search and seizure to the American people along with a violation of privacy. is a violation of privacy as well as being prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States because this would result primarily in a violation of the right to privacy and right to no unreasonable searches or seizures. Your stance on the topic of debate and a 1-sentence summary explanation 2) A short history and background information surrounding the case 3) List of evidence and research supporting your claim, using a legitimate line of reasoning (no emotions) 4) Two (2) possible points of evidence the opposing side could use against you 5) A Video that either summarizes or takes a stance on the topic of debate and a short description / explanation of the purpose of this video

1. The Executive branch does not have the power to spy on citizens without a warrant in order to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States because it directly violates the right to privacy and protection of no search or seizure without a warrant that is protected by the 4th amendment.
2. In 2005, it was publicly announced that President Bush had used wire tapping and spying techniques in order to protect the country from possible terrorist attacks. These spying techniques were preformed without a warrant and violated the U.S. Constitution. President Bush argued that he executed his actions in order to protect the country, and therefore had the authority not to issue a warrant.
3. Evidence:

• The first amendment protects the right to free speech and expression. Citizens have the right and protection to express whatever they wish, and have the reassurance that they will not be in legal trouble.
• The fourth amendment protects against the right to unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. A search against an innocent citizen could be seen as unreasonable.
• This is a violation of the separation of powers. Congress asked the President to restrain from the wire-tapping, and the President refused this request.
  

ACLU v. NSA

1) I believe the NSA has the right to wire tap because they aren't using the information they find for any other purpose but to end the war on terror and they have a compelling governmental interest.

2) After the terrorist attack of 9/11, president Bush installed a program through the NSA that let the NSA tap into phone lines, emails, text messages, ect, without a search warrant in order to find possible links to terrorists to prevent another terrorists attack.

3)

• The wire tapping represents a vital effort by the President to ensure that we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on America.

• President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people.
• The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to
  carry out that solemn duty.
• Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on Septembcr 18, 2001 -- After 9/11, Congress' first move was to authorize the president to
  
• In its first legislative response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Congress authorized the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” of September 11th in order to prevent “any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
• In order to intercept there must be a “a reasonable basis to
  conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.

4)

• NSA does not have the power under the 4th amendment, which requires a search warrant.
• "slippery slope" - If you give the president the power to do this you ultimately give him the power to do whatever he wants.

5) -- couldn't find one that didn't require youtube...

Matt Sanfield- ACLU vs NSA

Opinion: In my personal opinion, it is unconstitutional for the United States Executive Branch to have the authority to spy on the American public without a warrant. This is because it violates the safeguard granted to the United States' citizens in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as seen in the basic right stated in the 4th amendment.

Background Information: The terrorist attack of 9/11 prompted the initiation to propose a new type of national security measure: wire tapping. Allowing wire tapping was passed following 9/11 through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which intended to intercept international phone calls and internet communications overseas where at least one party involved in the conversation was not of United States origin. From this point, the Patriot Act was passed, which allowed the United States' Government to hack into interpersonal conversations to prevent terrorism and protect the safety of the Nation. Furthermore, the United States was informed that the National Security Agency had permission from the President to intercept phone calls and internet communications within the United States, without a warrant for the sake of National Security. Like many, the ACLU found this hard to believe and in violation of the American public's basic rights. Members of the ACLU had relationships with people in the middle east, and frequently communicated with them. These people were worried that their private conversations were being read by the NSA. Thus, the ACLU took the NSA (National Security Agency) to court regarding the constitutionality of allowing the NSA to intercept the American public's communications. In a 2006 district court ruling, the NSA program was found to be in violation of the 1st and 4th amendments, along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. However in 2007, the case was dismissed in a Court of Appeals on the basis that plaintiffs in the case had no evidence to sue based on their inability to prove that they had been wiretapped by the NSA. This ruling further protected the NSA from judicial punishment and resolved nothing. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2008, however the case was declined but is predicted to be admitted upon resubmission. Later that same year, the FISA Amendments Act was passed, allowing the NSA to have more power to spy on American citizens. The act was challenged by the ACLU in the case "Amnesty v Blair".

Supporting Evidence: Allowing the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant is unconstitutional.
-It violates the 4th amendment- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Violating the aspect of being secure in their own home on the phone. Violates the aspect that a warrant is required for search or seizure and only obtained with reasonable evidence requiring it.
-It violates the Katz v US (1967) ruling- Katz called someone in a phone booth regarding an illegal gambling activity but the FBI was secretly listening in on him. The FBI used that recorded information to convict him, but he appealed the ruling. The court ruled: "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." – Justice Stewart [1]
Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary). It also established the reasonable suspicion test.
- Violated the reasonable suspicion (which was a test to determine if government activity constitutes a search). It was test on the basis of 2 things- 1. an individual has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy. 2. is the expectation of privacy reasonable? The expectation of privacy was violated. Places intertwined with expectation of privacy: home (violated), phone booth, jails, and public restrooms. In these places you're granted a right to privacy (dont have to worry about Government
interference).
-A district court found the act to be unconstitutional.

Counter- Arguments:
-It's for the purpose of National Security and thus legal.
-The NSA only uses it to track down terrorists and because of this narrow view, it can't be misused. For example, if a murderer confessing to a murder was recorder, that information couldn't be used in trial because it wasn't related to preventing the war on terrorism.
-Patriot Act grants the US Government the authority to spy on American citizens.
-Schneck v US- Schneck had his rights violated in a time of war to protect National Security.


Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ
A video justifying the unconstitutionality of the NSA's power to intercept all interpersonal communications within the US.

ACLU v. NSA

1. I believe that the Executive Branch should not have the power to spy on Americans without a court warrant because it is in violation to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution and also a violation to the separation of powers.
2. After September 11, 2001 President Bush authorized surveillance on the United States to receive messages and phone calls going to foreign countries. He made the argument that it was constitutional due to national security. In 2005 the nation found out about this and later in 2006 ACLU challenged this in a district court and won, but in 2007 it was overturned. ACLU challenged the decision to the Supreme Court in 2008 which was decided that the NSA had even more power than before.
3. Violation of the 4th amendment which states that there is no unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, checks and balances which would limit the power to the executive branch, violation of the communications act; you can't intercept or read messages in the United States, also a violation to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which states the procedures to get judicial permission to have electronic surveillance on people involved in suspected terrorism.
4. Some possible opposing arguments would include: the Patriot Act which allows certain actions without judicial authorization, the goal is to protect national security, and it isn't UNREASONABLE search and seizure.
5 video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ
this video provides arguments in support of the ACLU. It shows some of the arguments from the court of appeals in Cincinnati.

ACLU v. NSA Debate Claire Roos

1.) The Executive Branch should not be able to spy on Americans without a court warrant in order to try to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States because this would result primarily in a violation of the right to privacy and right to no unreasonable searches or seizures.

2.) Background on ACLU v. NSA:

Many prestigious journalists who often communicate with people over seas (often in the Middle East) to obtain accurate news sources have reason to believe that the United States government is intercepting these communications due to the location and reason of calls. In 2001, the NSA launched the program, ratified by George Bush, that allows for the interception of international communications without any kind of warrant. In 2006, this case was taken to court and the district court ruled that the NSA program allowing spying was unconstitutional. However, this ruling was overturned in 2007 because the plaintiffs could not be certain if they were actually wiretapped. The ACLU then requested the Supreme Court to review the ruling, but declined to do it in 2008.

3.) Reasons:

• The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free speech, which is being violated if the government can arrest someone for terrorist activity based on communications without court approval.
• The implied right to privacy is being violated because the government is listening and reading people's private, not public conversations and using them to prosecute people.
• The fourth amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. Searches and seizures require a warrant, which in the NSA program, is not required to wiretap.
• This is a violation of the separation of powers because the president ignored congress's rulings/regulations against unwarranted spying. the Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) from 1978 both issue strict regulations and limitations of surveillance, which are being violated by the NSA.

4.) Counter Arguments

• The president's power as commander in chief gives him the power to take actions necessary to insure the safety of the United States during a war (the war on terror).
• If the program was made in accordance with the rules and regulations listed in FISA, then the wiretapping program is legal.

5.) Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ

This video explains the reasons why the NSA program is unconstitutional. It explains how FISA made it illegal for the executive branch to make searches and seizures and eavesdrop without a warrant, however, Bush allowed the NSA to violate this law. Also, the reporters in question were simply trying to do their job and promote democracy, but now they are unable to do so.

1) Your stance on the topic of debate and a 1-sentence summary explanation 2) A short history and background information surrounding the case 3) List of evidence and research supporting your claim, using a legitimate line of reasoning (no emotions) 4) Two (2) possible points of evidence the opposing side could use against you

ACLU v. NSA

1. The NSA should not have the ability to monitor such messages without a warrant. Anything in this type of area is protected by the 4th amendment. 2. 3. The 4th amendment protects from an unreasonable search. This, in tandem with the ruling in Katz v. United States, protects from an unreasonable search through technology.

ACLU v. NSA

No, the Executive Branch should not be able to listen to person conversations without a warrant or any type of notification because..... In 2006 the count ruled in favor of ACLU, stating that Bush (President) could not wiretap without court issued warrant. By the NSA doing so they are violating the peoples First and Fourth Amendments along with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Framers never wanted the President to have such uncontrollable powers, Bush was clearing disregarding the enumerated powers given to him by the Bill of Rights. The opposing side could argue that, anyone could be the next terrorist. Although that may be true, listening to conversations and them knowing that NSA is listening it going to make them not want to say the things they would in private. That is no help to anyone and it makes the ones that really are harmless feel uncomfortable in the "comfort" in the own home. They could also argue that, things said that are regarding terrorism will be ignored. Even though, NSA is disregarding things like that doesn't mean they need to know. With the NSA wiretapping and ease dropping they could find out information that they really do not need to know.

Big Debate - Jenny Wang

Opinion: The power of the government's spy on individuals is constitutional because when the situation involves national security, the safety of the nation must be put first before the rights of individuals.

Background Information: In 2005, ACLU sued NSA for spying/wiretapping on the ACLU. A district court in Michigan ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, however circuit courts and other appellant courts declined to hear the case since not enough evidence is present to prove that the ACLU was being spied. The Supreme Court also declined to hear the case in 2008. New turn of events in NSA's policy, which gave more power to listen to international calls, prompted the ACLU to sue NSA again. (Amnesty v. Blair)

Arguments: In Schenck v US, the rights of Schenck was restricted because of a time of war. The government's priorities were in protecting the rights of the citizens, and during war time, Schenck's opposition to the draft could have threatened the security of the nation. In a similar sense, the protection of the US from foreign threat during wartime is necessary, and the most effective method is the wiretapping of individuals for the sake of national security. As promised by the NSA, if evidence of other crimes are obtained, they will not be used against the individuals, upholding Mapp v Ohio and a Constitutional right. So the NSA does not take away all of the rights of a citizen in a criminal trial.

Opposing views: The actions of NSA are violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the actions of NSA also give the president/executive power excess powers. The Constitution also states that the President has this authority by his executive power from Article II, Section 1. And if he needed any additional authority, the Authorization for Use of Military Force gives him the right to use intelligence-gathering methods.

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYVxlCA9vPQ

ACLU attorney Ann Beeson argues their case against the NSA's right to wiretapping.

Against Wire Tapping

To obtain information, a warrant is necessary. If there is unwarranted search and seizure, then there's a violation of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution.

In order to use information in court, there must be a warrant, which comes from suspicion.

Since the government doesn't even know what they're looking for, they can't obtain a warrant and they cannot sift through people's information.

This increased amount of government power could lead to an abuse of power in the future as well, and should be prevented at all costs.

Charles D. Big Debate

I believe that giving the Executive Branch the power to spy on Americans without a court order is unconstitutional under the 4th amendment and FISA.

The central court case to this issue, ACLU v. NSA, involved several plaintiffs who thought that they were being spied on by the NSA without a warrant. A district court in Michigan ruled for the plaintiffs, ordering that all NSA spying (sans warrant) on US citizens be halted immediately. However, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the decision, but refused to elaborate on the legality of the issue based on the dubious quality of the plaintiffs' claims. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision.

Reasoning:

4th Amendment: "Search and Seizure" clause. The government may not obtain any evidence under the ownership of an entity without a warrant. Electronic communications between two parties are owned by the two parties; the government may not violate their right to privacy by invading their personal communications and seizing information.

FISA: This act clearly states that surveillance of an American citizen's electronic communications must be approved by a judge within 72 hours of first act of espionage on said person.

Counter Arguments:

The preamble asserts the Executive's rights to deter any ill-willed actions within the United States.

FISA grants a 15 day grace period for warrant-less wiretapping during a time of war.

The President has the power to conduct any secret surveillance for the purposes of foreign issues.

Video:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=861

The video takes a position against wiretapping w/o a warrant.

Big Debate

1. I believe that the Executive branch shouldn't be able to spy on Americans without a warrant to prevent terrorist attacks. This directly goes against the fourth amendment's right against to unreasonable search and seizure.

2. Post September 11th 2001, the federal government scrambled to respond to the terror attacks. A major piece of legislation was passed, the Patriot Act, this broad Act allowed the federal government to search various type of records in order to prevent against future terror attacks. Recently ACLU has challenged NSA, arguing that there individual right have been violated.

3. From a constitutional point of view the fourth amendment clearly protects against these actions. The fourth amendment states the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Only through a warrant granted with probable cause, may a search or seizure be justified. Another argument is the supreme court case Hamdi v. Rumsefeld which the court ruled that the U.S. Government has the right to detain individuals without charges or trials, but they are allowed to challenge their treatment in court. Another part of the Patriot act allows for searches of homes to be conducted and then the owner is informed later, this further violates the fourth amendment

4. There are many views against ACLU, but the major argument is through the Patriot Act. The Act previously explained, allows these searches in order to prevent future attacks on national security and matters of protecting national security may sometimes infringe upon individuals rights.

Name: Hilda L. Solis

Title: Secretary of Labor

Official Department: Department of Labor

Roles:

I monitor, stimulate and alleviate the quality of life of working individuals

This is important because it is following the preamble in helping the general welfare of U.S. citizens.

Enforce workplace safety regulations

This is important because it is important to keep Americans safe and comfortable in the workplace.

Testify to the United States Congress on matters related to labor and employment

This is important because without someone to testify for the working class, they would not be well represented.

Quote:

"When union people get paid good wages, that money stays in the community, it helps to provide a vibrant economy, it helps to also even send their children like me...to college and to eventually even run for office."

— I said this while talking about the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for employees to form unions and to bargain with employers (Washington Post, Dec. 18, 2008)

ACLU v. NSA Debate

1) My stance on the ACLU v. NSA debate is with NSA's argument because when the NSA is sifting through information, they are only targeting terrorist threats and information and will not use any other information against anything not involved with the war on terror.



2) After the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the Bush Administration wanted to keep Americans safe and when the Terrorist Surveilance Act was passed, they began wire tapping and the Patriot Act was also passed which allowed the President to proceed in activity without judicial review (no warrent needed). ACLU disagreed with the NSA's wire tapping and took them to court where their actions were found illegal under the rights of the First and Fourth Amendments.

3) Constitution gives the President the power to protect the American people as Commander in Chief. Also, the NSA is only looking for information about terrorism and no other information will be used against any American (Mapp v. Ohio). The probable clause factor also contributes to NSA's actions because it is in the interest of the nation's security.

4) Could be seen as a Fourth Amendment right violation with unreasonable search and seizure. Also, could be seen as a violation of one's right of privacy or First Amendment rights .

BIG DEBATE: ACLU v. NSA Steph

Should the Executive Branch be able to spy on Americans without a court warrant in order to try to prevent future terrorists attacks on the United States?

Who: National Security Agency vs. American Civil Liberties Union

What: The chief executive has allowed NSA to wiretap phone conversations and spy on email conversations without consent. ACLU has challenged this practice, calling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unwarranted search and seizure. However, NSA has countered that this is a necessary step towards catching terrorists; they argue that the nation's interests trump individual rights in this case.

When: This debate has first reached court in 2006, where ACLU had won against the government. However, this decision was overturned a year later. When asked by ACLU to reconsider this decision, the Supreme Court declined. In fact, Congress passed the FISA Amendments act in 2008, enabling NSA even more power to illegally search the conversations of citizens without their consent.

** FISA, also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, gives guidelines for asking for judicial authorization of electronic communications and physical search of spies or terrorists against the U.S. for someone else**

I think the government has no right to have access to private conversations because this directly violates the 4th Amendment, the right against unwarranted search and seizure.

My Points:

Katz v. U.S. --4th amendment protects citizens and their conversations; police must obtain warrants to wiretap phones.

Mapp v. Ohio --Police cannot use evidence from unwarranted search and seizure in trials (Exclusionary Rule)

4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The opposer's points:

-The 4th Amendment states that there must be a probable cause for the search.

-National Security trumps individual rights.

Janet Napolitano Video

Janet Napolitano's Public Service Announcement is related to the quote from my blog stating that Americans need to inform police or security about suspicious behavior in order for Homeland Security to keep people safe.

Eric Holder: The Man, the Myth, The Legend

Eric Holder

Attorney General

United States Justice Department

I serve as a member of the President's cabinet. In this way, I can advise him on all legal matters. I am also the top law enforcement officer in the government. 

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

In this quote, I was inferring that our country has done little to confront the issue of racism. Instead, we have merely pushed it into the shadows of our society.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Name: Tom Vilsack

Title: Secretary of Department of Agriculture

Official Department: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Roles:

• Select organizations to inspect equipment of farms and other agricultural facilities

• Issue certificates to those who comply under agreements, giving them permission to carryout certain actions.

• Makes regulations to organizations in the chapter that are needed to ensure the functioning of the department; Can deny or give the organizations of the chapter the right to inspect equipment and have certificates.

• Can make inspections of facilities that are in the process of trying to receive certificates of compliance.

• Mandates the submission of reports to the department of agriculture of people/facilities desiring a certificate of compliance or an organization of the chapter that wants to test equipment.

• Makes sure that reports are filed and reviewed for seekers of certificates of compliance and organizations in charge of inspecting equipment.

• Must tell the Secretary of State about matters concerning agreements being made (who then informs the House)

• Can do whatever action is necessary to implement the agreements and maintain the objectives and of the Department of Agriculture.

In other words, these powers are used to:

• strengthen our agricultural economy
• boost and energize rural communities
• protect and conserve America's natural resources
• ensure a safe and healthy food supply for all Americans.
  

Quote
"I am heartened that net farm income is projected to increase about 20 percent, or almost $16 billion, from the previous forecast. That's the second highest figure since the mid-1970's. OR as we stated in the briefing room the second highest inflation-adjusted value for net farm income recorded in the past 35 years. "

• Significance: This quote shows the secretary's concern and interest in the economy of the agricultural industry and his trying to get the lowest prices possible for farmers and agricultural workers.

Video of Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzPyBtVY1d4&feature=fvsr

After a survey showed 15% or more Americans experienced "food insecurity" within the past year, Vilsack explains the causes of this problem, primarily the recession, and what the USDA is doing to help, such as working to provide food stamps to those who qualify.

Name: Ray LaHood
Official Title: Secretary of Transportation
Official Department: Department of Transportation

My roles:

Provide safety across all modes:
This allows me to ensure that every mode of transportation is safe, whether it's airplanes, car, trains, etc.

Shape the future economy:
I can help shape the future economy by creating new jobs and building new transportation infrastructure.

Oversee air, maritime and surface transportation missions.
I am in charge of leading an agency that oversees all types of transportation missions

Quote:
“We're going to have to put a real sharp pencil to the budget, sharper than we have ever had to do before”

Significance:
This quote helps to demonstrate the tight budget that our government is running on. The Department of Transportation is on a very sharp budget and must be able to use the small budget to preform all of their designated tasks.

Video:
http://www.dot.gov/videos/index.html

Summary:
This video talks about the issues of distracted driving and how I am planning on solving them. Many preventable causalities are due to distracted driving, and I am working hard to solve this issue through legislation.

Robert Gates

Name: Robert Gates

Title: Secretary of Defense

Official Department: United State Department of Defense

Who I am

I am the face of the Department of Defense. I develop policies related to National Defense and am the primary defense adviser to the President.

My Role

As head of the department of defense, my primary role is to ensure that the United States has a standing military composed of an army, navy, and air force in order to provide military service to fight wars, and protect the United States.

Quote

"We will be making a terrible mistake if this ends up being called America’s war ... This needs to be an Afghan war and not an American war and not a NATO war"

- Robert Gates

Significance

This quote was Robert Gates' reaction to the possibility of naming the American, Afghanistan conflict the 'American War'. In response, this quote reveals that the conflict was initiated as a response to a threat in Nation Security and therefore armed forces were sent overseas to protect the integrity of safety American citizens have come to expect. It also shows that, because the war primarily pertains to constricting the terrorism in Afghanistan, armed forces were sent only to assist in Afghanistan's attempt to accomplish these goals. Thus, the problem existed more prominently in Afganistan than America, and was being fought on Afghan soil, rightfully deeming it an "Afghan War."

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50bc7cY-_2c

This video shows an example of Robert Gates' optimism toward developing a relationship with Pakistan to destroy the Taliban. He believes that this will result in protecting the National Security of Pakistan, in addition to limiting the terrorist threat the United States feels.

Secretary of Labor

="">

Name: Hilda L. Solis

="">

Title: Secretary of Labor Official Department: Department of Labor

="">

GEorge

george

Deparment of Homeland Security- Secretary Janet Napolitano

I am Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano for the Department of Homeland Security. I forge new partnerships with international allies and strengthen our borders security. This is necessary in the wake of recent events dealing with our national security. In order to maintain the safety of the American people, the department and I must work to insure the United States is safe from any attack. I also work to prevent terrorism, secure and maintain safe borders, enforce immigration laws and ensure and disaster preparedness, response and recovery I once said "And I am also here to say that if something were to happen, we are prepared to respond swiftly, to respond effectively, and to respond strongly. That is our tradition as a country. And that is a tradition that we will uphold, regardless of any circumstance because this nation is one that is very, very strong and, indeed, extraordinarily resilient." This is to further emphasize how dedicated an seriously I am to my position here and the department. This is also the basis of the Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4949458n