Since the attacks on american targets happened on september 11, 2001, americans have been required by their government and by social pressure to give up or limit certain freedoms that they formerly took for granted. americans now must endure onerous security checks at airports, have their communications and library records monitored through secret warrants, even in some instances give up the right to habeas corpus. the argument in favor of these actions has been that americans must sacrifice some civil liberties to obtain security, especially in a time of war. opponents argue that such intrusions amount to an unjustified abuse and extension of government power?

Yes, Americans who oppose this new reality argue that this is a government interference in private life, so as to hurt individual freedoms. Of course, such conduct divides opinions. However, it is noteworthy that in the name of national security, this is not illegal, the government has the prerogative to intervene to protect society as a whole. Unfortunately this is a reality that we have to live with, since the terrorist attacks happen by surprise. I agree with this conduct, because in my view it is better to sacrifice some of our freedom to stay safe in this violent world.

answer: there were new carvings etched into the back of the sculpture and each shoulder was turned into a symbol of the birdman.

no, dan should reduce his discretionary spending. not long-term goals involve more planning than short-term goals do