# data[].attributes.body
http://www.history.com/topics/puritanism

# data[].attributes.body
This gives good information about the period.

# data[].attributes.body
These are not American Authors, but the information about Postmodernism Literature is good.

# data[].attributes.body
If you were not in class, you must find someone to edit your essay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill of Rights and later Amendments to the United States Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View the original text of history's most important documents, including the Bill of Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Delayed Notice Search Warrants: A Vital and Time-Honored Tool for Fighting Crime

Field Report on the PATRIOT Act

The Department of Justice's first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Patriot Act has played a key part - and often the leading role - in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life. While the results have been important, in passing the Patriot Act, Congress provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law. Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global terrorist network.

The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty
(Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism)

Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum.

The Act Improves Our Counter-Terrorism Efforts in Several Significant Ways:

1. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. Many of the tools the Act provides to law enforcement to fight terrorism have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers, and have been reviewed and approved by the courts. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor debate about the Act, "the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists." (Cong. Rec., 10/25/01)

Allows law enforcement to use surveillance against more crimes of terror.Before the Patriot Act, courts could permit law enforcement to conduct electronic surveillance to investigate many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes, such as drug crimes, mail fraud, and passport fraud. Agents also could obtain wiretaps to investigate some, but not all, of the crimes that terrorists often commit. The Act enabled investigators to gather information when looking into the full range of terrorism-related crimes, including: chemical-weapons offenses, the use of weapons of mass destruction, killing Americans abroad, and terrorism financing.

Allows federal agents to follow sophisticated terrorists trained to evade detection. For years, law enforcement has been able to use "roving wiretaps" to investigate ordinary crimes, including drug offenses and racketeering. A roving wiretap can be authorized by a federal judge to apply to a particular suspect, rather than a particular phone or communications device. Because international terrorists are sophisticated and trained to thwart surveillance by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, the Act authorized agents to seek court permission to use the same techniques in national security investigations to track terrorists.

Allows federal agents to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases. Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who's sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. These records were sought in criminal cases such as the investigation of the Zodiac gunman, where police suspected the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet, and wanted to learn who had checked the poet's books out of the library. In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.

2. The Patriot Act facilitated information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better "connect the dots." The Act removed the major legal barriers that prevented the law enforcement, intelligence, and national defense communities from talking and coordinating their work to protect the American people and our national security. The government's prevention efforts should not be restricted by boxes on an organizational chart. Now police officers, FBI agents, federal prosecutors and intelligence officials can protect our communities by "connecting the dots" to uncover terrorist plots before they are completed. As Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said about the Patriot Act, "we simply cannot prevail in the battle against terrorism if the right hand of our government has no idea what the left hand is doing" (Press release, 10/26/01)

Prosecutors and investigators used information shared pursuant to section 218 in investigating the defendants in the so-called "Virginia Jihad" case. This prosecution involved members of the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center, who trained for jihad in Northern Virginia by participating in paintball and paramilitary training, including eight individuals who traveled to terrorist training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan between 1999 and 2001. These individuals are associates of a violent Islamic extremist group known as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), which operates in Pakistan and Kashmir, and that has ties to the al Qaeda terrorist network. As the result of an investigation that included the use of information obtained through FISA, prosecutors were able to bring charges against these individuals. Six of the defendants have pleaded guilty, and three were convicted in March 2004 of charges including conspiracy to levy war against the United States and conspiracy to provide material support to the Taliban. These nine defendants received sentences ranging from a prison term of four years to life imprisonment.

3. The Patriot Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats. The Act brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with antique weapons-legal authorities leftover from the era of rotary telephones. When investigating the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, for example, law enforcement used one of the Act's new authorities to use high-tech means to identify and locate some of the killers.

Allows victims of computer hacking to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring the "trespassers" on their computers. This change made the law technology-neutral; it placed electronic trespassers on the same footing as physical trespassers. Now, hacking victims can seek law enforcement assistance to combat hackers, just as burglary victims have been able to invite officers into their homes to catch burglars.

4. The Patriot Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button. That's why the Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad. In particular, the Act:

Eliminates the statutes of limitations for certain terrorism crimes and lengthens them for other terrorist crimes.

The government's success in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland since September 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, without the USA Patriot Act. The authorities Congress provided have substantially enhanced our ability to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of terror.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Delayed Notice Search Warrants: A Vital and Time-Honored Tool for Fighting Crime Field Report on the PATRIOT Act The Department of Justice's first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks.

# data[].attributes.body
Reseach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advocacy groups, major tech companies, and a coalition of huge firms including Google, Microsoft, and Apple have sent a letter to the Obama administration urging it to decisively end the NSA's bulk collection of metadata, which expires June 1st as part of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Obama has already urged Congress to develop a new framework for handling metadata, proposing that telecom companies hang onto the records and only hand them over when law enforcement receives a court order. That proposal was made a year ago. If Congress wants to keep allowing the government to access these records - and, yeah, it probably does - it'll have to act within the next several months.
"There must be a strong, clear, and effective end to bulk collection practices."
"There must be a strong, clear, and effective end to bulk collection practices under the USA Patriot Act, including under the Section 215 records authority and Section 214 authority regarding pen registers and trap & trace devices," the companies write in the letter, which was sent today and signed by nearly four dozen groups. "Any collection that does occur under those authorities should have appropriate safeguards in place to protect privacy and users' rights." Other signatories of the letter include Wikimedia, Mozilla, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, Silent Circle, the ACLU, and CloudFlare.

Congress started moving toward reform last year, but its efforts have failed so far. The House passed the USA Freedom Act, which would have ended the government's bulk metadata collection and instead had phone companies handle it, like the president requested. The Senate, however, failed to pass a companion bill. What happens in the next few months will be critical for the state of surveillance - the last time Section 215 was authorized, it was cleared for four more years. There's some concern that the Patriot Act may still allow ongoing metadata collection to continue even if the act sunsets, but the administration has said that it doesn't plan on continuing the program if that happens.

The text of the letter is below:

We the undersigned represent a wide range of privacy and human rights advocates, technology companies, and trade associations that hold an equally wide range of positions on the issue of surveillance reform. Many of us have differing views on exactly what reforms must be included in any bill reauthorizing USA PATRIOT Act Section 215, which currently serves as the legal basis for the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata and is set to expire on June 1, 2015. That said, our broad, diverse, and bipartisan coalition believes that the status quo is untenable and that it is urgent that Congress move forward with reform.

Together, we agree that the following elements are essential to any legislative or Administration effort to reform our nation's surveillance laws:

* There must be a clear, strong, and effective end to bulk collection practices under the USA PATRIOT Act, including under the Section 215 records authority and the Section 214 authority regarding pen registers and trap & trace devices. Any collection that does occur under those authorities should have appropriate safeguards in place to protect privacy and users' rights.

* The bill must contain transparency and accountability mechanisms for both government and company reporting, as well as an appropriate declassification regime for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decisions.

We believe addressing the above must be a part of any reform package, though there are other reforms that our groups and companies would welcome, and in some cases, believe are essential to any legislation. We also urge Congress to avoid adding new mandates that are controversial and could derail reform efforts.

It has been nearly two years since the first news stories revealed the scope of the United States' surveillance and bulk collection activities. Now is the time to take on meaningful legislative reforms to the nation's surveillance programs that maintain national security while preserving privacy, transparency, and accountability. We strongly encourage both the White House and Members of Congress to support the above reforms and oppose any efforts to enact any legislation that does not address them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tech coalition including Microsoft, Apple, and Google presses attack on the Patriot Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advocacy groups, major tech companies, and a coalition of huge firms including Google, Microsoft, and Apple have sent a letter to the Obama administration urging it to decisively end the NSA's bulk collection of metadata, which expires June 1st as part of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the 3 minute video clip I showed in class.

# data[].attributes.body
This article from CNN offers some of the debate.  Look down at the bottom to see some "Notable Leakers and Whistle-Blowers."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Early Saturday morning, the Senate failed to pass both a two-month extension of the current program, as well as a House alternative that sought to keep many of the NSA's surveillance abilities intact. With the Senate set to take a week-long recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the chamber will meet again on Sunday, May 31, to consider ways that would not let the program expire.

What is the Patriot Act?

The law goes back to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and embodies the swift reaction of the executive and legislative branches in the wake of the deadliest terrorist strike on American soil.

Within weeks of the attacks, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the bill into law, giving law enforcement and intelligence authorities unprecedented domestic authority -- and the tools to wield that authority -- to thwart plots against the United States.

"Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists," Bush said at the law's signing ceremony in Oct. 2001. "The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including emails, the Internet, and cell phones."

But it would end up doing much more -- more, even, than the law's major supporters and its primary architect on Capitol Hill, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, ever imagined possible.

So that part about cell phones. That's how the NSA started collecting phone records on millions of Americans?

Yes, but the Patriot Act wasn't actually used for the justification for bulk metadata collection until 2006.

That practice began secretly in 2001 after Bush used his executive authority to give the NSA the green light to begin sweeping phone and Internet records after 9/11.

The Bush administration would eventually use the Patriot Act to justify its program -- enshrining it in law.

Hold up. What the heck is this metadata, anyway?

Metadata is all the information surrounding a call, including the caller's number, the receiver's number, the time and location of the call, and how long it lasted -- basically, everything except for the audio of the call itself. And the NSA collects the metadata of millions of Americans without those citizens' knowledge and without a warrant specifically targeting individuals suspected of wrongdoing.

OK, but how much can the NSA actually learn without listening in to the call?

The NSA can actually piece together quite a bit about a person by analyzing phone metadata --- information that a surveillance target's family might not even know.

Repeated calls to a cardiologist could suggest a heart condition. Repeated late night calls between two employees could suggest a romantic relationship.

"They can know, for example, whether an American called a psychiatrist three times in 36 hours, twice after midnight. That is a lot private information," explained Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, a leading supporter of NSA reforms.

And while NSA agents likely aren't spending their days poring over the metadata of Americans who aren't suspected of any terrorist activity, the agency does store the data for five years and retains easy access to the trove of information.

So what in the Patriot Act authorizes the NSA to rake in that information?

The government can petition the FISA court -- a secret court spawned out of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- for a warrant to collect "any tangible things" to investigate terrorism or foreign spies.

If the government can credibly show that to the court's 11 judges, it gets a secret warrant that can force companies, such as Verizon, to hand over private information. And the recipient of the warrant is barred from discussing the warrant with anyone, due to national security concerns.

The Patriot Act stresses that the government can only request a warrant to obtain information that is "relevant to an ongoing investigation against international terrorism."

How is the data of millions of Americans "relevant" to terrorism investigations?

The Bush administration argued in 2006 that the metadata analysis program could only be successful if the government could collect and store the data of millions of Americans, even though it conceded "the vast majority of (data collected) will not be terrorist-related."

"Although admittedly a substantial portion of the telephony metadata that is collected would not relate to operatives of (redacted), the intelligence tool that the government hopes to use to find (redacted) communications -- metadata analysis -- requires collecting and storing large volumes of the metadata to enable later analysis. All of the metadata collected is thus relevant, because the success of this investigative tool depends on bulk collection," the administration argued.

That argument served as the justification for subsequent FISA court decisions approving warrants to collect customer data from various phone companies -- warrants that need to be renewed every 60 or 90 days.

But now Section 215 of the Patriot Act could be going away? And this program would change?

That's right. But lawmakers who want changes to the program still have a tough slog ahead of them.

Sensenbrenner, the lead author of the Patriot Act, was quick to condemn the FISA court's interpretation of the law once Snowden revealed the extent of the dragnet surveillance, calling the practice "based on a blatant misreading of the law."

He and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, have since led the charge to reform the Patriot Act and their efforts have gained steam in recent months, with the USA Freedom Act overwhelmingly passing the House earlier this month in a 338-88 vote.

The reform bill would keep the government from collecting telephone metadata of millions of Americans, instead requiring the NSA to get a warrant from the FISA court to collect data on a specific individual from telecommunications companies.

But the law is facing stiff opposition in the Senate from some of that chamber's most powerful Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, who want to reauthorize the Patriot Act for five years without any reforms.

And if the Senate can't reach an agreement to extend the Patriot Act in some way, chunks of the law would sunset on June 1.

If the Senate doesn't get its act together, what happens?

Section 215, which authorizes the bulk metadata collection program, would sunset.

But two other sections of the Patriot Act would also expire: a so-called "lone wolf" provision and another section that allows roving wiretaps.

The first allows law enforcement to use the national security apparatus to go after suspected terrorists who may not be affiliated with a terrorist group, but share terrorist ideology and aims. That's a particular concern for law enforcement officials today as terrorist groups like ISIS are using social media to inspire individuals to carry out attacks in the U.S. and Europe.

The FBI would also lose the ability to apply for new roving wiretaps to pursue suspected terrorists, a common procedure used in other criminal investigations that allows officials to wiretap additional phones linked to a suspect without requesting a new warrant.

Former FBI Assistant Director Tom Fuentes, a CNN analyst, said losing that authority would be a "severe" blow to counterterrorism efforts, keeping the FBI from collecting the information it needs in a timely manner.

But counterterrorism officials already conducting investigations wouldn't be completely hamstrung. A provision in the Patriot Act would allow officials to use these tools in investigations that were started before the June 1 sunset date.

Why are some lawmakers so opposed to reforming the Patriot Act?

For opponents of reform, it's all about national security.

They cite the growing terror threats the U.S. is facing, as ISIS continues to grow in Syria and Iraq and expands its reach online, inspiring attacks in Europe and the U.S.

To throw away a key tool at a time of such heightened concern would be foolish, opponents say.

"For somebody to just say we're willing to let the Patriot Act expire is irresponsible," Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told CNN.

McCain and others argue that the U.S. could have prevented 9/11 if the NSA programs had been in place before the terror attacks.

And fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina insisted that the NSA programs authorized under the Patriot Act are "still our best bet to prevent another 9/11."

"It's one thing to reform the Patriot Act," Graham said. "It's another thing to gut it or weaken it."

The Republican opponents of reform are toeing the line set out by Burr, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. Several Republican lawmakers -- including Graham and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina -- cited Burr as their ideological guide on the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance.

"When Richard Burr tells me it goes too far, I think about that," Graham told CNN. "I trust his judgment."

Terrorism is deadly serious. Why do some lawmakers want us to restrict any of our intelligence-gathering capabilities?

Reformers insist their opponents are fear-mongering when there's actually little to fear from reforming domestic surveillance.

The government hasn't been able to provide any examples where the NSA's bulk data collection played a key role in thwarting a terror plot.

And multiple reviews of the program by groups and individuals with access to classified information have concluded the program isn't as much of a boon to national security as the staunchest defenders of the program suggest.

A presidential review group convened to review NSA surveillance in the wake of the Snowden revelations concluded "the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of Section 215 telephony meta-data was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional Section 215 orders."

Put another way, the NSA doesn't need to pull telephone metadata on millions of Americans to protect U.S. national security -- it should just petition the FISA court for access to data of suspected terrorists.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent agency within the executive branch, also couldn't find "a single instance involving a threat to the U.S. in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation."

Richard Clarke, a former senior White House counterterrorism adviser to Republican and Democratic presidents who served on Obama's NSA review group, said "there's no way that you can claim that there's a single terrorist act that was prevented because of the telephony metadata collection program."

"There are always going to be politicians who take positions that are not fact-based but are based more on emotion and political positioning," Clarke said. "There are always going to be politicians who are going to position themselves as more opposed to terrorism than anybody else. But their positions are not analytically derived or fact-based."

How are supporters of reform pushing back against national security concerns?

Let's leave it to their own words. Here are several pro-reform lawmakers who sat down for interviews with CNN.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, was one several top congressmen to meet with House Republican leadership to craft a compromise version of the USA Freedom Act that could pass the House.

"I think most Americans believe -- and I certainly do -- that you can have a very high level of protection of civil liberties and a very high level of national security. In fact, we believe this bill strengthens both," he said.

He noted that the bill would strengthen some provisions of the Patriot Act, ensuring, for example, that there is no lapse in surveillance between different agencies when a potential terrorist enters the U.S. and the FBI takes over -- without needing new authorization from the FISA court.

Sen. Mike Lee, the Republican from Utah who is sponsoring the USA Freedom Act in his chamber, is leaning his arguments on constitutional concerns and trust in government as he looks to sway conservatives.

"The USA Freedom Act does not propose that we abandon any and all efforts to analyze telephone data," Lee said. "What we're talking about here is a program that currently contemplates the collection of all data just as a routine matter and the aggregation of all that data in one database. That causes concerns for a lot of people... There's a lot of potential for abuse."

Reformers also point out that the FISA court is creating a body of what they call "secret law." The USA Freedom Act would require major FISA court decisions -- like the one that authorized bulk data collection -- be declassified.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
patriot act debate: everything you need to know - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patriot Act debate: Everything you need to know - CNNPolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early Saturday morning, the Senate failed to pass both a two-month extension of the current program, as well as a House alternative that sought to keep many of the NSA's surveillance abilities intact. With the Senate set to take a week-long recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the chamber will meet again on Sunday, May 31, to consider ways that would not let the program expire.

# data[].attributes.body
Research

# data[].attributes.headline
Rand Paul Takes to Senate Floor to Protest Patriot Act Renewal

# data[].attributes.subject
Rand Paul Takes to Senate Floor to Protest Patriot Act Renewal

# data[].attributes.body
Research

# data[].attributes.body
Begin outlining your essay

# data[].attributes.body
Create your own

# data[].attributes.body
Notes:

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions:  Click on the box below. Then click on "view original" in the upper right corner. You will need to sign into your Google account and click on the video.  The assignment is on the board and written within the Google Classroom.
To view this view, go to Google, and sign in, just as you would Google Docs.
To sign in to the Google Classroom use dko9eko, this is the classroom number.

# data[].attributes.body
What are your future career/job/work goals?  How will you achieve these goals?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Regina Hartley: Why the best hire might not have the perfect resume

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Given the choice between a job candidate with a perfect resume and one who has fought through difficulty, human resources executive Regina Hartley always gives the "Scrapper" a chance. As someone who grew up with adversity, Hartley knows that those who flourish in the darkest of spaces are empowered with the grit to persist in an ever-changing workplace.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.mvla.net/view/9080.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Period 2: 10603212

Period 4: 10603219

Period 7: 10603227

Password: Peterson

# data[].attributes.body
How to get on to Classzone:

Account Number:

987824-10

1. Click My Account located on the top, right of the Classzone Homepage

2. Click Create a Student Account

3. Enter your birthday and press Continue.

4. Fill out all required information to create user account. Click to create account.

5. A page will appear indicating Registration is complete. Verification of your username and password will show. Click to continue.

6. On the user account summary page, click Activate more products and enter provided activation code. Click to continue.

# data[].attributes.body
Follow the links in chronological order. You will write a short response for the red bullet. You will need to return to this page for the chart ( blue bullet).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TOUCH this image to discover its story. Image tagging powered by ThingLink

# data[].attributes.headline
White Buffalo Woman and The World on the Turtle's Back Chart

# data[].attributes.subject
White Buffalo Woman and The World on the Turtle's Back Chart

# data[].attributes.body
Copy this chart on to your own paper.

# data[].attributes.headline
Review Things They Carried and O'Brien's reflection on the novel

# data[].attributes.subject
Review Things They Carried and O'Brien's reflection on the novel

# data[].attributes.body
Before watching this video, write a KWL chart. What do you know about women in the Vietnam War? Write three questions you have about women within the war. After watching the video and reading the article below the video, write what you learned. Answer your questions (if they were answered). If your questions were not answered, find the answer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contents

1. U.S. Army Women in Vietnam

2. Women in the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines in Vietnam

3. Civilian Women in Vietnam

Though relatively little official data exists about female Vietnam War veterans, the Vietnam Women's Memorial Foundation estimates that approximately 11,000 military women were stationed in Vietnam during the conflict. Nearly all of them were volunteers, and 90 percent served as military nurses, though women also worked as physicians, air traffic controllers, intelligence officers, clerks and other positions in the U.S. Women's Army Corps, U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines and the Army Medical Specialist Corps. In addition to women in the armed forces, an unknown number of civilian women served in Vietnam on behalf of the Red Cross, United Service Organizations (USO), Catholic Relief Services and other humanitarian organizations, or as foreign correspondents for various news organizations.

U.S. Army Women in Vietnam

The great majority of the military women who served in Vietnam were nurses. All were volunteers, and they ranged from recent college graduates in their early 20s to seasoned career women in their 40s. Members of the Army Nurse Corps arrived in Vietnam as early as 1956, when they were tasked with training the South Vietnamese in nursing skills. As the American military presence in South Vietnam increased beginning in the early 1960s, so did that of the Army Nurse Corps. From March 1962 to March 1973, when the last Army nurses left Vietnam, some 5,000 would serve in the conflict. Five female Army nurses died over the course of the war, including 52-year-old Lieutenant Colonel Annie Ruth Graham, who served as a military nurse in both World War II and Korea before Vietnam and suffered a stroke in August 1968; and First Lieutenant Sharon Ann Lane, who died from shrapnel wounds suffered in an attack on the hospital where she was working in June 1969. Lane was posthumously awarded the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross with Palm and the Bronze Star for Heroism.

Did you know? In November 1993, the Vietnam Women's Memorial was dedicated at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. in front of a crowd of some 25,000 people. The centerpiece of the memorial is a bronze statue by Glenna Goodacre, which depicts three female nurses assisting a wounded soldier.

Early on, the U.S. Army resisted sending women other than nurses to Vietnam. The Women's Army Corps (WAC), established during World War II, had a presence in Vietnam beginning in 1964, when General William Westmoreland asked the Pentagon to provide a WAC officer and non-commissioned officer to help the South Vietnamese train their own women's army corps. At its peak in 1970, WAC presence in Vietnam numbered some 20 officers and 130 enlisted women. WACs filled noncombat positions in U.S. Army headquarters in Saigon and other bases in South Vietnam; a number received decorations for meritorious service. No WACs died during the conflict.

Women in the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines in Vietnam

Members of the U.S. Navy Nurse Corps also played an important role in the conflict beginning in 1963. Five Navy nurses were awarded the Purple Heart after they were injured in a Viet Cong bombing of an officers' billets in downtown Saigon on Christmas Eve 1964; they became the first female members of the U.S. Armed Forces to receive that award in the Vietnam War. Apart from nurses, only nine Navy women-all officers-served in Vietnam, including Lieutenant Elizabeth G. Wylie, who worked in the Command Information Center on the staff of the Commander of Naval Forces in Saigon beginning in June 1967; and Commander Elizabeth Barrett, who in November 1972 became the first female naval line officer to hold command in a combat zone.

Women also served as members of the U.S. Air Force Nurse Corps and the Women's Air Force (WAF) during the Vietnam conflict. Captain Mary Therese Klinker, one of the eight military women killed in Vietnam, was the flight nurse on the U.S. Air Force C-5A Galaxy that crashed April 1975 near Saigon. (The plane had been on a mission for Operation Babylift, which placed Southeast Asian orphans with families in the United States; some 138 people were killed in the crash, including many Vietnamese children and a number of female civilians working for U.S. government agencies.) Klinker was posthumously awarded the Airman's Medal for Heroism and the Meritorious Service Medal. The U.S. Marine Corps had a more limited female presence in Vietnam, as until 1966 only 60 female marines were permitted to serve overseas, with most of those stationed in Hawaii. From 1967 to 1973, a total of 28 enlisted Marine women and eight officers served in Vietnam at various times.

Civilian Women in Vietnam

In addition to the U.S. military women who served in Vietnam, an unknown number of female civilians willingly gave their services on Vietnamese soil during the conflict. Many of them worked on behalf of the American Red Cross, Army Special Services, United Service Organizations (USO), Peace Corps, and various religious groups such as Catholic Relief Services.

Other American women traveled to Vietnam as foreign correspondents for news organizations, including Georgette "Dickey" Chappelle, a writer for the National Observer who was killed by a mine while on patrol with U.S. Marines outside Chu Lai in November 1965. According to the Vietnam Women's Memorial Foundation, 59 female civilians died during the conflict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. Army Women in Vietnam Women in the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marines in Vietnam Civilian Women in Vietnam Though relatively little official data exists about female Vietnam War veterans, the Vietnam Women's Memorial Foundation estimates that approximately 11,000 military women were stationed in Vietnam during the conflict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copyright © 2018 Discovery Education. All rights reserved. Discovery Education is a subsidiary of Discovery Communications, LLC.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading Schedule and Journals for The Things they Carried 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading Schedule and Journals for The Things they Carried 

# data[].attributes.headline
11/18  After reading "Love," "Spin," and "On the Rainy River"

# data[].attributes.subject
11/18  After reading "Love," "Spin," and "On the Rainy River"

# data[].attributes.body
Go to the CNN website. Click on the image below and then click on "view original" in the upper right corner.

Once there, read several of the Op-Ed articles about military drafts.

There are 739 articles, find a few you want to read.

After reading these articles and "On the Rainy River" WRITE a ONE page, double spaced journal that considers the following: What is O'Brien's attitude toward the war and the draft? Who does he feel should be drafted? What are the opinions of others regarding the military draft? What are some of the arguments that are made within the Op-Ed's? What are your thoughts about national service, who should serve, and how? If there existed a national service that did not involve combat, would you be willing to join? Why or why not?

BE SURE TO PROPERLY CITE THE OP-ED ARTICLE(S) THAT YOU READ!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News about draft and recruitment (military). Commentary and archival information about draft and recruitment (Military) from The New York Times.

# data[].attributes.body
Watch the 5 minute clip from DiscoveryEd.

Do the AEIOU

Adj.-a word or two

Emotion-Emotional reaction

Interesting-Something interesting

Oh!-surprised you

Uh?-a question

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/718931180837142530

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A brief history of the Vietnam War. by Peterson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TOUCH this image to discover its story. Image tagging powered by ThingLink

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/

Look through the list of casualties for both the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. Spend some time looking at names, faces, and biographical information. You can also look at the numbers, if you are more comfortable with this.

Then read and listen to "'Redeployment' Explores Iraq War's Physical and Psychic Costs" from NPR

(click on the image below and then in the upper right corner click "view orginal")

While reading/listening to this article, you will take notes and create four (4) questions that you would like answered through class/group discussion.

WRITE A HALF PAGE, typed, double spaced journal that considers the following; What are the costs of war? In your opinion, has the Iraq War and the Afghanistan war been worth those costs? What do you believe to be true about the realities of war?

Due: Friday, November 13th.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here's an old joke you may have heard: "How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: "You wouldn't know, you weren't there."

This joke gets told in Redeployment, a stingingly sharp short story collection that itself addresses the gap between the American soldiers who've fought in Iraq and those of us back home. It was written by Phil Klay who does know because he was there. After graduating from Dartmouth, he enlisted in the Marines and served as a public affairs officer in Anbar province during the 2007 troop surge. Klay's time there gave him something valuable that, consciously or not, he was surely looking for - great material.

Of course, countless writers start with great material and reduce it to mulch. Klay takes his experience and clarifies it, lucidly tracing the moral, political and psychological curlicues of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Like Tim O'Brien in his great Vietnam book, The Things They Carried, Klay is conscious of how lived life gets translated into stories.

His first-person tales take us inside an array of characters, from a Marine who tells us about handling dead bodies to a chaplain offering guidance to soldiers whose closeness to violent death makes them skeptical about God.

In the blackly hilarious story "Money As A Weapons System," a provincial reconstruction official tries to rebuild the area near Tikrit only to have a fortune in American aid be lost to local corruption and an American millionaire's demented mission to teach the Iraqis baseball. The wrenching title story, "Redeployment," begins the whole book with two short, chilling sentences - "We shot dogs. Not by accident." - and weaves this into a metaphor for both the war and for returning home.

Now, writers in earlier times often took a grand, even godlike view of war - think of Leo Tolstoy in War And Peace - or at least they stayed comfortably inside the action in novels like Norman Mailer's The Naked And The Dead or James Jones' The Thin Red Line. War stories these days tend to be fractured and self-conscious, as if a grand overview would be false. Klay quite pointedly doesn't offer a big vision, only a mosaic of smaller ones. In fact, what makes him so good is the way he can carry us from the battlefield to the strip bar, from the funny to the harrowing to the heartbreaking.

This may have something to do with the nature of America's most recent wars. Where World War II felt conceptually clean - our soldiers were fighting an evil enemy's army - the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been anything but. They've involved moving among civilians you're theoretically trying to save but who may try to kill you - and whom you may kill back, sometimes accidentally. Such warfare is more surreal than clean. And it feels even more disorienting when, stoked by video games, knocked out by Ambien and speaking in the obfuscating patois of military acronyms, the soldiers are performing a dangerous and brutal mission they suspect their country doesn't really believe in and would rather not think about. Heck, Americans won't even go to movies about our ongoing wars.

Klay makes you feel the physical and psychic cost demanded of our soldiers in Iraq. And he may be even better on what it means to return to an America that pays gaudy lip service to honoring the troops yet doesn't try to understand their service. Because we have a volunteer army, our soldiers and vets remain weirdly invisible to their fellow countrymen

Some of Redeployment's keenest moments show us returning soldiers' frustrations in trying to communicate their disturbing, often ineffable experience to people who greet them with clichés, however well-meaning. As one vet tells us, "There's a perversity in me that, when I talk to conservatives, makes me want to bash the war, and when I talk to liberals, defend it."

Redeployment is so wonderfully written, it's a pleasure to read. Yet it's hard not to be saddened by what an ill-conceived mess the war in Iraq proved to be. After so much money and sacrifice, you'd hope to wind up with stories happier than the ones Klay tells us. Which isn't to say that he smacks us with an obvious or strident political message. On the contrary, you're struck by the gnawing, sometimes stunned ambivalence that Klay's characters feel about the whole enterprise. His vets usually wind up feeling diminished, even soiled by what they had to do in Iraq, but also superior to the America they were doing it for.

"You risked your life for something bigger than yourself," one explains. "How many people can say that?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Redeployment' Explores Iraq War's Physical And Psychic Costs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's an old joke you may have heard: "How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: "You wouldn't know, you weren't there." This joke gets told in Redeployment, a stingingly sharp short story collection that itself addresses the gap between the American soldiers who've fought in Iraq and those of us back home.

# data[].attributes.body
https://classroom.google.com/c/MzAzODYxMDc1/a/MzM2NTE1NDA3/submissions/all

# data[].attributes.body
Read article on PTSD