Civil Liberties and Safety in the US - Essay Example

Civil Liberties and Safety in the US YourFirst YourLast The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America markeda turning point for the US as a nation. Without any warning, terrorists hijacked four planes and forced the pilots to rum into buildings, killing nearly 3,000 innocent individuals. The US government immediately responded in kind retaliating with equal measure. At the same time, the US congress ratified new laws that sought to protect American lives, at home and abroad. The USA PATRIOT Act was sanctioned, allowing the US government law enforcement officers extra powers to alleviate against future threats while simultaneously ensuring that civil rights are not violated. This paper addresses the thin line between protecting American lives through application of the PATRIOT Act and violating personal liberty clearly provided for by the constitution. It also highlights the various advantages and disadvantages of implementing this law. The Balance between Civil Liberties and Safety in the US Introduction The 2001 September 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the twin towers in the US were a significant revelation of the fears of terrorism and provided evidence of the dire need to protect the nation against such future risks. Since the event that took nearly 3,000 people, the American government has continuously pursued the enhancement of security, forcing a re-standardization of the thin line between civil freedoms and security. Most of the actions adopted have greatly affected the ways in which the local police and law enforcement agencies tackle the issue of terrorism. Nonetheless, the determination to sufficiently provide the police with the required equipment to avert terrorist activities has many times conflicted with protective civil rights of privacy. The US was naturally born into conflict and war with the attainment of freedom, the most significant statement of rights and natural liberties ever proclaimed. From that time onwards, the US has been the globes most free nation and has turned out to be its most safe, with military might that equals any formidable threat. The US has over the years sidestepped the fate of countries that have compromised civil liberties for enhancing security, or security for limitless liberties and attained none. Nevertheless, the healthy worries the other will absorb that one element has existed since time immemorial. The biggest question is how to balance civil freedoms with security. Discussion "Among the numerous objects to which intelligent and free populaces find it obligatory to direct their attention that of providing for their safety seems to be first." (Hamilton, Madison, Jay & Ball, 2003). The scholars who led the formulation of the Constitution were expressing their preference for a government that which they wished to shape America. Individuals tasked with forming and shaping the American Constitution understood the subjugation of dictatorship firsthand. The list of British exploitations and manipulation is noted in the Declaration of Independence: unruly judgments, the segmentation of the military, extensive looting and removal of life and freedoms according to personal impulse, not by law. These great men understood that such violations would infringe on individual liberties of the citizens, also to the security that a government of a free state is supposed to provide to the society. When such situations come to be, the citizens have a right to do away with such oppressive governments and in their place put people who are ready protect both their rights and secure their future through provision of security. Madison and Meyers (1981) observe that in instituting a government that is to be managed and run by men, there lies a huge impediment in terms of control. First, the government must be empowered so as to give direction to the governed. Similarly, it must be set up in a way that it accommodates measures to control itself. In most countries in the world, their governments can effectively achieve the desired level of control over its citizens, even though it is done in a forceful way, rather than by agreement. Capping government powers is often a process done with many complexities, and many times ends in bloodshed, many times without success so desired. This issue was foreseen by the founding fathers, the individuals highly spoken of who formulated the Constitution. They, therefore, formulated a brilliant solution to the problem, though regarded as radical in some quarters. Civil Liberties Changes since September 11, 2001 September 11, 2001 marked a turning point in the US history. In its resolve after the terrorist attacks, the US Congress and the American Citizenry came to a consensus that limitations on civil liberties would be unavoidable, not to negate basic human rights, but to avert their exploitation. A number of the policies ratified by the US Congress and approved by the government of the terrorist attack have treated the citizenry constitutional freedoms as flaws and have been unable to strike an amicable balance between civil liberties and the requirements of enforcing the law. USA PATRIOT Act In the confines of the USA PATRIOT Act that was adopted subsequently after the attacks, the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) has been significantly widened. FISA was ratified in the year 1978 (Rogers, 2006), after widespread condemnation of the governments tactics of employing wiretaps, which were termed as being intrusive and an overstepping of its mandate. FISA enactment established a significant blockade between international intelligence surveillance inside the US and the local domestic criminal inquiry. Under the FISA law as initially enacted, a local court may give consent to execute surveillance of external agents or powers only, by way of employing a lesser level of examination than is commonly employed by the local justice system. The US PATRIOT Act amended the FISA enactment and gave greater powers to the US Attorney General to allow local criminal surveillance to be under its dominion, a noteworthy development. The enactment of the US PATRIOT Act additionally enabled the investigating officers the mandate to employ the use of new-fangled surveillance methods. Institutions such as the NSA, FBI and the CIA have been enabled to execute phone-tapping techniques (Bush Defends Domestic Wiretapping Program; Congress Reauthorizes Patriot Act, 2006), besides conducting sneak and peek combs in which officers are allowed to go through private property, notifying the person whose property has been looked into only afterwards the investigation has been completed. While acknowledging the need to change the way operations are handled to counter terrorism, these changes have come under immense criticism, questioning the wisdom of the enactment and passage of such draconian laws. Correspondingly, in enhancing investigative authority of the police and other law enforcement agencies, the US government has suggested data-mining systems such as TIA (Total Information Awareness) to gather huge quantities of information that is regarded as private on all Americans, including ATM withdrawal information, travelling data, telephone records and medical information (Kerr, n.d.). All the collected information would be put into a database and analyzed through computer software that would assist in identifying any terrorist activities. There are other suggestions that empowered ordinary American citizens to spy on each other and take note if there are any suspicious activities, creating a situation that would make all American citizens suspects. Such tendencies in addition to accumulating private data without any real direct or indirect connection to terrorism or threat would be an infringement on personal liberties without any convincing promise of achieving any value to the police. They simply preserve the misapprehension of security, while potential dangers continuously elude the law enforcers. The US government has introduced new laws and guidelines that affect personal freedoms, principally as they relate to non-residents. After the terrorist attacks, the US Justice Department started a policy of extensive precautionary detentions, leading to unofficial custody and imprisonment of more than 1,000 individuals, commonly non-residents of Islamic descent. In addition, Special Registering of all male non-residents largely of Arabic and Islamic nations of between the ages of 17 and 25 through the INS department in 2002 was initiated, targeting individuals from North Korea and Middle East countries. Questions asked during the process of registration included historical places of residence, fingerprint scans, and facial scans. Other questions included chronological timelines of mosque attendance. Such activities threaten to asphyxiate civil freedoms such as the freedom of expression and other rights provided for in the constitution. Events after the Enactment of the US PATRIOT Act After the passing of the US PATRIOT Act, the US security forces gained an upper hand in matters terrorism. For its part, through the US PATRIOT Act, the law enforcement agencies are now capable of identifying, penetrating and dismantling terrorist plans because of these changes and structural amendments to the US laws (Powers, 2005). Some of the notable changes include access to a wide pool of information and the development of modernized techniques of surveillance and information sharing. Counterterrorism activities and the Homeland Security Department efforts in countering terrorism were issues unexamined throughout the electioneering period in 2012 and 2008. Among the changes implemented to improve on security was heightened airport and cargo search, sniffer dogs and other gadgets that assisted and continued to assist authorities in enhancing security. In general, reports indicate that there have been over 30 main bombs terrorist attacks prevented within the US. Key notable terrorist attack averments include the discovery of the underwear bomber - an individual of the Middle Eastern origin who had strapped bombs in his pants on his way to board a jetliner. The detection of the Zari scheme 2009, September was the first in a sequence of red flags to the country on the national security state. Zazi Najibullah was apprehended after buying immense amounts of elements from beauty stores in a plan to discharge TATP explosives on the New York City subway. The terrorist plot was regarded exceedingly grave, and it was in the final phases of being developed when Zazi – the culprit – was caught. This revelation was very troubling and deeply disturbing to many American citizens. Faisal Shahzad was found guilty of attempted detonation of a car bomb in June 2010 at Times Square in New York City. The culprit pleaded guilty to charges related to terrorism after being nabbed by homeland security special agents, after carefully sifting through and analyzing collected intelligence. Faizal was later sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In the year 2010, Headley David was found guilty to multiple terrorism charges in the Northern District of Illinois. Headley confessed that he took part in the preparation of the November 2008 terrorist attacks in the capital of India, Mumbai. The accused additionally confessed to bombing a Danish newspaper that had printed caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. With his co-accused, Headley was sentenced of taking part in the Danish terror plot and giving material assistance to a Pakistani terror group known as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. All the accused persons, in this case, were found guilty and convicted. Conclusion The US currently is faced with an opposite risk. Upholding robust national defense safeguards freedoms from threats unknown and known to us, from scalawag police officers to terror groups. This responsibility is vital and supreme of the US federal administration. Gathering intelligence effectively and executing the mandates as enshrined in the constitution in methods that are consistent with the American civil liberties and expectations, is equally important (Warshawsky, 2013). The intelligence frameworks assist in securing personal freedoms against the individuals who strive for destruction. The more these systems work hand in hand, the better the quality of protection offered to all citizens within the US. Even though it is often said about having a good equilibrium between personal freedoms and security, there should be no pressure or tensions between the two elements. Laws and regulations that tighten the countries security thereby making it safer and secure, specifically against external dangers, do not inescapably weaken its citizens freedoms. Shielding personal freedoms does not consistently hobble the states security. Contra wise, as the states constitution acknowledges, the two elements support each other. By having them complement each other, we protect the blessings of freedom to our future and ourselves. Any danger to the American people and its security is also a danger to the American peoples freedoms. References Bush Defends Domestic Wiretapping Program; Congress Reauthorizes Patriot Act. (2006). Foreign Policy Bulletin, 16(04). doi:10.1017/s105270360600044x Hamilton, A., Madison, J., Jay, J., & Ball, T. (2003). The Federalist. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Kerr, O. Internet Surveillance Law After the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That Isnt. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.317501 Madison, J., & Meyers, M. (1981). The mind of the founder. Hanover [N.H.]: Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of New England. Powers, K. (2005). The U.S. Patriot Act. [Boston, Mass.]: Massachusetts Bar Institute. Rogers, D. (2006). “Were From the Government and Were Here to Help You”. Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act. LIM, 6(01), 55. doi:10.1017/s1472669606000119 Warshawsky, M. (2013). The Balance to be Found Between Civil Liberties and National Security. The RUSI Journal, 158(2), 94-99. doi:10.1080/03071847.2013.787753 Read More