Arguments Against Total War

According to McGraw-Hill (p.717), the word “total war” is defined as “warfare, in which the opposing states mobilize their civilian populations and all available resources to achieve victory.” The British Defense or “Defence” of the Realm Act became law on August 8, 1914. This emergency legislation was enacted by the King and gave him power to issue regulations for securing defense and overall safety of public interests. This legislation was enacted to prevent the spread of false reports and to prevent any assistance being given to the enemy. Depending on the severity of the offense, the guilty person was either “court-martial” or sent to trial by court. If the offense was committed with the “intention of aiding the enemy,” the person
I also believe that my personal freedom or rights shall be fair and balanced rights before any courts. I believe the “National good,” is when the government protects the nation and it's citizens against any crisis. In order to achieve the overall goal of protecting “national security,” there needs to be a balance. We as individuals deserve for our Constitutional Rights to be respected and the government needs to create more of a balance of power, so that they do not infringe too much. The USA Patriot Act was established on October 26, 2001 by President Bush. It was enacted to assist law enforcement with protecting our country from terrorism, especially due to the tragedy of 9/11. I personally feel that if the government is violating a lot of our personal privacy and freedom. There needs to be a balance of our rights vs. national security. A free individual should not feel as though all of their personal information is being spied upon or we will become a dictatorship type society. We will have no rights if we totally compromise for the supposed good to “protect the national