Securing America and Protecting Civil Liberties - Research Paper Example

? Running head National security vs. personal privacy Latisha Mitchell Matthew Minicucci ENG 122 February 20, Securing America and Protecting Civil Liberties September 11, 2001 is an unforgettable day in the American history, during this day the extent of human cruelty was demonstrated through an act of terrorism that shocked the world. Following this act of terrorism America became a war nation, everything in the country including policies were developed to fight terrorism. The measures taken by the government to protect the citizens were extreme. The federal government also went forth to establish an antiterrorism unit or a special police department that handles terrorist and terrorist related cases. These efforts by the government were aimed at enhancing national security. The mode or tactics applied by the federal government to ensure national security has raised question from the public concerning the cost the public needs to pay for a secure nation. Civil liberties are personal freedoms and guarantees that are beyond the control and regulation of the federal government. With the current anti terrorism trend, the government has been forced to draw a boundary between civil liberties and war on terrorism. The federal government should promote civil liberties and democracy despite the current security concerns. This analyzes the importance of maintaining personal privacy without compromising national security and war against terrorism. The US patriot act was introduced after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. According to our research findings, the Act was introduced to unite American and prevent any future acts of terrorism (Sunstein, 2003). The Act was therefore meant to prevent terrorism by punishing terrorists across the United States and around the world. Fighting terrorism is a good thing however; the American government seems to have taken the fight to an extreme end. This is because the war on terrorists ended up on people’s doorstep making them to become victims of the war. Since the implementation of the Patriot Act, the First and Fourth Amendment were changed to heighten war on terror. This led to a compromise on people’s freedoms. Firstly, the first and Fourth amendment considered the national security as a priority. Since the implementation of the Patriot Act, the first and fourth amendments were changed to enhance national security. This implied that according to the act the authorities had the rights to vary and at sometimes compromise people’s freedom in their fight against terrorism. Personal privacy is a civil liberty; according to the constitution, the government has a duty to ensure that it protects human rights. The national Act was designed to fight terrorism, had little or no concern over individual privacy and civil liberties. Although fighting terrorism to ensure national security is, a good thing for the government it is costly and therefore the government needed to think otherwise. The cost that the government incurred in ensuring national stood out as an opportunity cost. The government needed to consider the opportunity cost that it suffered in ensuring national security at the expense of civil liberties. From the investigations, it was found out that the government incurred heavy costs through Loss of credibility and trust among its people. If the government considered these cost then it could have realized that enhancing civil liberties was beyond national security. Fighting terrorists is the responsibility of the government. I have no any problem with the efforts the government took to fight terrorists. Every American citizen believes that war against terrorist compromises people’s democracy and should have been controlled. Democracy was established to enhance people’s freedom on their movement, speech, and personal privacy among other civil liberties. Personal privacy is a civil liberty and hence a symbol of democracy. From the investigation, it was established that the authorities had difficulties distinguishing terrorists from citizens. Similarly, the authorities did not have the ability to differentiate between civil property and properties used by terrorists. This implied that it was impossible to pick a terrorist from a group of people. It is therefore difficult to respect people’s privacy and at the same time intensify the war on terrorism. As a nation, America had been emulated around the world as a symbol of democracy. The act of intruding of personal privacy however nullified the existence of democracy in the country (Gross, 2004). The federal government should have considered introducing policies that enhanced personal privacy despite the immediate needs to fight terrorism. A democratic country has the freedom of movement and speech as basic rights of the citizens. Democracy also considers socialization and formation of social groups as a basic right of the citizens. With the needs to fight terrorism, America stopped considering this as basic rights in a democratic nation. The government’s effort to enhance national security introduced conditionality into basic human rights. It also raised concern about the existence of American democracy. It was also established that the needs to fight terrorism made the federal government restrict people’s movement. Restriction of movement was normally imposed to protect places of national interests or high-risk areas from terrorist attacks. This move restricted people’s freedom of movement and this has raised questions about American democracy. Although the needs to fight terrorism were immediate to the country, the government needed to consider its role of ensuring a democratic nation. The country also needed to consider its international credibility and the symbol of democracy bestowed on it. If the government had consideration over people’s welfare, it could have prioritized on personal liberty despite the immediate needs to fight terrorism. The international credibility was important to the country since it is the reason behind the success of our nation. Historically America had been considered as a symbol of democracy and all nations across the world always admired the level of American democracy. Ensuring national security was a good thing for the country; however, the government could not afford to lose the value at hand in pursuit of unknown value. National security that surpasses American democracy was unknown value for the nation and therefore the government needed to consider the issue before taking the security measures that it took. In addition, democracy had more value to the country than the proposed secure nation. If the government values its national and global duties of maintaining democracy then it would have given national security less attention. This implies that the government needs to ensure democracy as a civil liberty instead of national security. Fighting terrorism is a duty as well as a responsibility of the federal government. The government also had the responsibility of protecting the rights of the people by maintaining a democratic space (Hardin, 2003). I believe that the later are more important to the government since the citizens are more important than the terrorists are. The government should therefore have established strategies to ensure that people enjoyed their basic freedoms and at the same time maintain its war on terrorism. People are more important to the country since America cannot exist without Americans. In addition, the country had risen to its current position due to the effort of the Americans. Although terrorist and threats from terrorist had been in existence, the measures placed by the government to ensure state security after the September attacks raised the question of the position of the people. In its efforts to ensure national security the government employed extreme measure that compromised the importance of the citizens to the country. The amount of money spent by the government to ensure state security in relation to the amount spent on basic things such as health proved that the government valued state’s security than its people. Terrorism and national security are temporally trends. Americans remains as part of the country despite the country’s security level. This implied that the government should have given people priority over national security. If the government had this preference then civil liberties could be more important than national security. It was also established that torture was applied to punish terrorist suspects or force them to volunteer information. Although torture was the main option for the authorities to handle terrorist suspect, I do not believe the move was appropriate in a democratic country. According to the rules of democracy, every person had the right to be tried according to the law. The law of the country did not specify any particular case that should be handled through torture. Although the state security agencies detained terrorists to enhance security, the measure dented the country’s democracy. Terrorist suspects therefore needed to have been tried according to the American law instead of detentions without trial. This could have ensured that America remained the dream country of the world. The country could also have stopped being the world’s watchdog for terrorist due to its consequences. Conclusion The government needs to promote personal privacy despite the immediate security needs. Although the war on terror is an important duty of the federal government, the government still has the responsibility of maintaining people’s rights and freedom. The government should therefore have balanced the two roles in order to maintain democracy. Ensuring national security at the expense of civil liberties is costly to the country. By ensuring a secure country at the expense of civil liberties, the country lost its international credibility. Fighting terrorism was costly to the government and the country spent more money to take care of terrorist than it spent on basic things such as public health. The recent financial crisis that affected the country and the world must have resulted from the misplaced priorities. The country would perform better with policies that promote personal privacy. The federal government should therefore prioritize on personal privacy since it is a symbol of democracy and civil liberty. Reference Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26: 121-136 Hardin, S. (2003). Openness, privacy, and National Security Post 9/11: A debate. Bulletin of the American society for information science and technology, Feb/Mar; 29, 3. Gross, E. (2004). The struggle of a democracy against terrorism—Protection of human rights: The right to privacy versus the national interest—The proper balance, Cornell International Law Journal 37 (1), 27-32. Read More