Bombs in America, Civil Liberties and Securities - Essay Example

Bombs in America Affiliation In the past few decades, increased bomb attacks and threats have left Americans in a worrying state about their general security. The September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were a strong example of the dreadfulness of terrorism as the attacks offered evidence of the imperative need to protect our country against such dangers. Since the time of those attacks, the United States government has sought to improve security, imposing a recalibration of the balance between civil liberties and security. Many of the procedures taken have proven fundamental to the law enforcements aptitude to fight terrorism. Yet, the effort to grant law these officials with the mechanisms they need to stop terrorism has repeatedly come into clash with the need to defend individual’s constitutional freedom to privacy and due process. The following essay will look into the individual liberties that people have and how they pose a potential threat to their security. Also, the essay will focus on how a balance can be put in place between civil freedoms and the national security. Analysis America was born into battle upon the Declaration of Independence, which was the most significant statement of freedom and natural rights ever made. Since then, the United States has been the world’s freest nation and has become its most safe, with a military force equal to any threat. The country has steered clear of the fate of other nations that have had to let go of their freedoms for assurances of security, or given up security for unlimited liberties, yet achieved neither. However, the healthy concerns that one or the other will, at some point, vanish has persisted throughout different periods since independence. The question that, therefore, begs is how America must balance security and civil liberties. Civil liberties involve the basic freedoms and rights that citizens are guaranteed, either openly identified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or construed throughout the years by lawmakers and courts. The rights include the citizen’s freedom of speech, their right to privacy, their right to be free from perverse searches of their homes, their right to a just court trial, the right to marry and their right to vote. However, with the changing times that have seen major technologies come into existence, security threats no longer involve strong and large armies. In fact, a single person has the ability of causing major chaos in the American soil with the help of the current technologies. There are those freedoms that Americans have that potentially can inhibit or compromise their security if preserved. For example, liberties such as the right of privacy and the right to be free from perverse searches of homes have their own negative side (Calcutt, 2003). With America being home to diverse people, who are either citizen, refugees of visitors, it would be hard for authorities to identify a terrorist without any proof. However, if the authorities conduct rigorous searches in homes, the chances of identifying proof of threat are higher although innocent people will have their rights violated. In addition, other privacy issues such as eavesdropping on people’s conversation and surveillance by authorities introduced after the 9/11 attack produce mixed reactions. While people feel that their right to privacy is being violated and that their individual information could be at risk of exposure to other threats, the government sees it as an effective way of easily tracking down terrorists. A certain percentage feel that it is for the greater good as we no longer live in the past where terrorist activities were planned manually and that with the advanced technologies, the terrorists have also upped their games (Calcutt, 2003). In the American history, the founding generation was well aware of the tyranny oppression when under the British colony. The founders had no rights whatsoever and the Declaration of Independence brought about both hope and relief to them and they perceived security and liberty to be one and the same. In the contemporary America, tensions usually arise whenever the issue of balance between liberty and security is mentioned. It is, however, worth noting that laws that tend to promote a nation’s security, especially against terrorism threats; do not necessarily demoralize its people’s freedom (Savas & Dameron, 2010). On the other hand, safeguarding individual liberty does not always compromise the state’s security. As a matter of fact, as the constitution acknowledges, the two are strengthening: we obtain the blessings of freedom to ourselves as well as our prosperity. Hence, a threat to the United State’s security is also a threat to its liberties. Various observations reveal that about every state achieve control over the people they govern, though more often it is done by force than by sanction. Consequently, it is hard to see many governments with limited power and for those with it, it is usually complicated. However, these powers are fundamental to conserving both safety and liberty. America is the type of a nation that has enough strength to provide its citizens with everything they need and strong enough to take away everything one has. It is obvious, given many instances in the past that any power handed over to the government by the people may be used against them or ill-treated (Savas & Dameron, 2010). The separation of power between the three divisions of the federal government and between the federal government and the states offers the flexibility vital in ensuring the control necessary in protecting liberties as well as security. The safeguards inputted in the Bill of Rights are the ultimate protection against any infringements on liberty that would loosen the checks in the constitution. For instance, without the First Amendment’s certification of the right to free speech, to petition government and to assemble, the political divisions would be less receptive to citizens’ distress (Sharp, 1999). In addition, voters would be less knowledgeable of the implication of their choices. The Fourth Amendment’s ban on unfair searches and seizures guarantees that the government may not subjectively pester those who combat its policies. The Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” necessitates the weight of the government policies to be widely shared. Nonetheless, while these specified rights are essential, they also tend to be specific as well as narrow. They only present a microscopic portion of the rights preserved by the nation and its people. For instance, an individual has the right to provide for his/her family, to control the nurturing of the children, to own a home and to make contracts. Therefore, these rights, which are too many to list and too altering to be included in a constitution, are subject not to particular assurances but to the constitution’s structural safeties. As a result, most matters of national liberty and security are fit not for arbitration by the courts, but for the exercise of the verdict of the people through the political divisions (Sharp, 1999). However, the United States has in most cases succeeded in maintaining civil liberties and security through adoption of policies that support both. Nonetheless, there are those instances that have seen the two get compromised due to the failure by the government to follow the rules. Most of those instances have been associated with the increased bomb threats especially since after the 9/11 attack that saw about 3000 lives lost. Various surveys that have been carried out by various people have produced surprising results in which more and more people are willing to forego their liberty rights so long is it will guarantee security (Waldron, 2003). For instance, the implantation of advanced scanners at the airport that scans people’s bodies was met with criticism initially. However, three years later, most travelers seem to have accepted it and even consider it as an act for the better good. In addition, the intrusion by the federal government in people’s privacy through surveillance in the name of gathering intelligence is yet another issue that seems to be here to stay. Even after much criticism from people and other organization and a court ruling that declared it illegal, the activity still continues and people have had to learn to adapt to these changes in security details (Waldron, 2003). Unlike in the founding times where people’s liberties were determined by the size and the strength of the nation’s military force, the case is quite the opposite in the United States today. The states’ ability to uphold a strong national defense protects liberty against threats, whether known and unknown, from rascal states to terrorist associations. This is the supreme and imperative responsibility of the national government. In addition, collecting intelligence is fundamental too though only when successfully performed in techniques that are consistent with Americans’ rights and prospects. Such intelligence systems help in protecting people’s liberties against individuals or bodies that seek to destroy them. The better the programs can work, the more efficiently they can protect individual’s security and liberty. For instance, the military tribunals for terrorists serve, in other areas, as a barrier between our civilian justice program and the legal compromises that must take place during trials related to violation of the laws of war. There are instances where the United States made verdicts that were counterproductive. While imprisoning individuals who actively scheme with the adversary in a time of war is sound rule, the decision to do so currently to individual suspected to have terrorism links without trial is unfair (Waldron, 2003). Benjamin Franklin said “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Savas & Dameron, 2010). That is a noteworthy quote that points out people who willingly sacrifice their freedom for security will, eventually, attain neither. The future security for the country largely depends on the people’s willingness to participate in government’s efforts of combating threats in the current time. However, if people were to completely disagree with its methods that seem to compromise our liberties, it would mean that no more surveillance, or searches in homes. Consequently, terrorists would find a safe and uninterrupted way of entering and hiding in the country while staging an attack. With the continued advance in technology, it seems like our future threat is largely connected to it as it has the ability to do exploits without much force. Therefore, it would be advisable if the federal government maintained supervisions on activities that have high tech involvements. Conclusion In conclusion, civil liberties and securities are very vital to people’s very existence and lack or compromise of either of them, then poses a potential threat. It is, however, difficult to determine and implement an effective balance between the two as there always will be one that has to be slightly compromised in order to give way to the other. However, the extremes in which the federal governments at times go into in the name of upholding security should be regulated, such that, only in extreme circumstances should it resort into such. Otherwise, holding suspected people with links to terrorists without trial should be considered illegal and so should be other extreme surveillances. That way, with a little compromise by both the citizen and the government’s lesser extremism should be a good balance between the two. Alternatively, the nation can choose not to balance the two at all and instead insist on rules that exploit both to a practicable level. REFERNCES Calcutt, B. (2013). Civil liberties in a grave new world. Eureka Street, 23(15), 3-5. Savas, T. P., & Dameron, J. D. (2010). The new American Revolution handbook: Facts and artwork for readers of all ages. New York, N.Y: Savas Beatie. Sharp, W. G. (1999). BALANCING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES WITH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN CYBERSPACE. Texas Review Of Law & Politics, 4(1), 69. Waldron, J. (2003). Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance. Journal Of Political Philosophy, 11(2), 191-210. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00174 Read More