Senator Russ Feingold was in opposition to the Patriot Act because A. He did not think the legislation went far enough in authorizing surveillance of possible suspects.
<h3>What is Patriots Act?</h3>
It should be noted that the Patriot Act was signed by President Bush in order o tackle terrorism in the United States.
In this case, Senator Russ Feingold was in opposition to the Patriot Act because he did not think the legislation went far enough in authorizing surveillance of possible suspects.
Learn more about Patriots Act on:
brainly.com/question/414562
Answer:
Explanation: These movements took place in three main countries: France, Belgium, and Poland. The general spirit was the desire of people to be independent and free from domination. At that time, the majority of European countries were ruled by monarchies. This movement was the first step of the bigger revolutions, that happened later in Europe, in 1848.
Further explanation
The first actions began in France between July 27 and 29, 1830. It was a revolt of the Parisians against King Charles X who did not accept to leave a little power to the people. For three days, the revolutionaries fought in the streets of Paris against the French soldiers and forced the king to flee. A new king was finally chosen, the Duke of Orleans, who established a more democratic monarchy.
Inspired by the French, the Belgians revolted from August 25, 1930. They won a better victory than their neighbors in France because they managed to free themselves from the control of the King of the Netherlands, William I, and declared their independence on October 4, 1830.
The last revolution during 1830 was the Polish. At that time, Poland was under the control of Russia, and the war lasted for almost one year. It ended in September 1831 with the defeat of the Polish who failed to gain their independence.
Hope this helps :D
The organization to contact depends on the nature of the conflict. Conflict between nations is within the scope of the United Nations Charter. A civil war (within a nation), in itself, is not the business of the UN. For example: the civil war in Syria is not within the authority of the UN. However, if the conflict spills over into another nation (such as artillery shells falling into Turkish territory), that nation could take the matter to the UN. Likewise, if human rights abuses or the use of WMDs (such as poison gas) occur, the UN and other international treaty organizations can get involved.
The alleged use of WMDs within Syria creates a justification for international response. This is the situation the US is facing now. Since the UN has no armed enforcement branch of its own, it relies on other nations to enforce its mandates. Right now, the US government is trying to determine if WMDs have been used beyond reasonable doubt and what response is appropriate. There are a wide variety of responses available, ranging from a toothless warning (such as the League of Nations over the Italian invasion of Ethiopia) to a unilateral invasion based on faulty evidence (such as the the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003).
Without the specifics of your lesson, this is the best I can do.
Answer:
The Radical Republicans also passed the Reconstruction Amendments, which were directed at ending slavery and providing full citizenship to freedmen. Northern Congressmen believed that providing black men with suffrage would be the most rapid means of political education and training
