Securing America and Protecting civil Liberties - Essay Example

? Securing America and Protecting Civil Liberties Civil liberties refer to rights and freedom, which provide a person with specific rights, for example, freedom from torture and death, freedom from slavery and forced labor, the right to liberty and security among others. Although civil liberties are distinct from other forms of liberty, there exist both positive and negative rights. Examples of common, civil liberties may include the freedom of religion, the rights of people, freedom of speech, and the right to privacy. However, there are some cases, in which, civil liberties may be restricted. This assignment will look at the restriction of civil liberties in the Bill of Rights in order to protect Americans from terrorist organizations. This will recognize the implementation of the USA Patriot Act. Securing America and Protecting Civil Liberties The signing of the Patriot Act; into law in the year 2001 gave the US government authority to obtain personal information regarding US citizens and permitted the government to detain strangers deemed as a risk to the state security. The holding of these individuals can be without any public acknowledgment. The federal law enforcing agencies have a wiretap authority, which access student readings in the library and internet usage (Taylor, 2005). This shows a restriction of the civil liberties. Some provisions of the Act allow the installation of a formidable tracking gadget capable of intercepting all kinds of internet activity, which include web page activity, e-mail messages and internet telephone communication. The Act was passed as a result of terrorists attack earlier in the period. The Act reduced daily freedoms of Americans and expanded the authority of the secretary of the treasury. The secretary was to control financial transactions of foreign individuals and entities (Savage, 2009). The First Amendment comprises several vital rights that guarantee an individual’s basic civil liberties such as freedom to speech, freedom to associate, freedom of the press, and freedom to religion. The civil liberties have protection against government restriction and interference by other individuals. The provisions of the First Amendment were first written when there were no radios, computers, televisions and other communication gadgets. Changes in the First Amendment have redefined and reinterpreted the entitlement to free speech and press. The rights of speech and press are not absolute (Taylor, 2005). According to the interpretation of the court about the changes in the First Amendment, freedom to speech or press can be denied in extreme cases. Another change in the First Amendment is against an individual facing a fair trial. The changes provide that individuals accused of terrorism must not be released on bail. This change will affect those individuals arrested under suspicion that they are terrorists, but they are not. In such a case, there will be no freedom to a fair trial. Another change that occurred to the First Amendment was a change of the provision permitting individuals to have the freedom to privacy (Savage, 2009). According to the changes made, the FBI had authority to access the internet messages, financial statements, and business records of an individual suspected to be a terrorist without the suspects knowledge or permission. The Fourth Amendment protects the Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. However, with the signing of the Patriots Act, the Fourth Amendment was changed with regard to the right of conducting searches and seizures. The change allowed citizens to be seized on the ground that the individual is suspected to be a terrorist. Any individual suspected to be a terrorist is searched without allowing the FBI to conduct the search. The searches conducted by the FBI may not be reasonable, but the change was allowed (Savage, 2009). Another change that occurred was the procedure that applied to individuals charged with a crime. The change that occurred did not support procedural criteria in facing crime committed. Savage (2009) observes that, since the signing, of the Patriots Act, a person is not allowed to shout voluntarily in a public gathering in order to enlighten people about an immense danger about to happen. Shouting by an individual is regarded as harm to the public. My position is that the First Amendment has been changed so as to accommodate freedom of speech and safety of the public. This has led to a restriction on speeches that pose an indirect, future danger. For example, in some cases, media are restricted from reporting facts; since revealing the facts may pose an indirect danger that may affect individuals in the news coverage. Since the patriots acts was signed, the restriction of the civil liberties delegate more powers to the executive branch than to the common citizens. Therefore, the Patriot Act does not rely on the congress or judiciary on any oversight. As such, it may be impossible to determine implementation of the provisions in the Act. In my opinion, the Patriot Act denies the Americans rights to privacy since the Security agencies can conduct searches without asking for permission of the person they want to search (Taylor, 2005). Moreover, it denies citizens the right to privacy. I believe that the restriction of the civil liberties is a denial of democracy to the American citizens. It is necessary to protect the citizens by destroying terrorists’ plans and networks, but not with denial of total freedom to the citizens. Most of the provisions in the patriot Act authorize new government powers without sufficient safeguards. Also, in some cases, the provisions do not limit the extent of limiting powers of terrorism investigations. The powers given by the Patriot Act may be abused by the executive branch since the court does not oversee the implementation. Since the terrorist attack, of 2001; most people have brought forward the use of torture to effectively curb terrorist activities. As a result of the threat posed by terrorism, nations have adopted the use of torture in order to get information (Taylor, 2009). However, torture cannot be used in some instances. For example, torture cannot be used to a person suspected to be a terrorist when there is a tickling bomb. This would risk the life of the citizens in the area targeted by the bomb. In such a case, negotiation can work better than torture (Taylor, 2005). Negotiation can work since torture could be seen as a violation of the constitution. On the other hand, preventive torture geared towards looking for information that will help in saving the lives of many can be recommended. This cannot be regarded as a violation of the constitution since the aim to benefit the majority. I believe that the constitution should be clear on which form of torture to legalize. Legalization of preventive torture is not wrong. Therefore, use of preventive torture does not violate the constitution. However, torture to some extent may be seen as a violation of the constitution. Conclusion The signing of the Patriot Act led to the infringement of some rights like the right to privacy. The Act favored the executives since the citizens had no say to the implementation of the Act. The court nor the congress; did not oversee the implementation of the Act in any way. The signing of the Act is seen as undemocratic to the American citizens. However, the Act has seen the reduction of terrorism cases. The use of torture is constitutional as long as the torture is preventive. References Savage, C. (2009, September 19). New York Times: Battle Looms over the Patriot Act. Taylor, S. (2005). USA Patriot Journal: The USA Patriot Act and the American Response to Terror. Vol. 2. Taylor, S. (2009, April 25). National Journal: Did Torture Save Lives? Read More