Terrorism as the Most Dangerous Threats to the National Security - Research Paper Example

The threat of terrorism warrants the curtailment of civil liberties Introduction Since the September 11 attacks, the threat of terrorism has become one of the most prevalent and most dangerous threats to our national security. The threat of terrorism is a clear and present danger to the peace and safety of many people around the world. Statistics released by the U.S. government indicate that in 2004 alone, terrorist attacks increased and the death toll for such attacks reached close to 2,000 deaths documented from different parts of the globe (1). Just as various technological advancements in civil and international defense have been made by different governments, including the United States, such improvements have also been made by the terrorists. These terrorist groups also have the latest in satellite imaging, in weapons technology, in biological and chemical weapons capability, and even cyber-terrorism. And they are not afraid to use these weapons and technological advancements on as many people as possible. They are not bound to honor the laws of man and of God in unleashing these weapons; but the different countries and governments trying to counter these terrorist attacks and weapons are pressured to abide by their laws. And because of terrorists’ disregard for laws coupled with their potential to wreak havoc on people’s lives, I believe that stronger means must be employed in order to protect and ensure our safety and security. There are necessary measures, like the curtailment of civil liberties, which have to be employed in order to counter the threat of terrorism. Discussion I believe that the threat of terrorism warrants the curtailment of civil liberties. An opinion survey conducted by YouGov in the UK sought people’s perception or opinion about the government’s proposal to control civil liberties and the survey revealed that a great majority of respondents believe that it is appropriate to curtail the movements of terrorist suspects even if the usual trial policies cannot be applied to them. The survey also revealed that most people favored preemptive actions to be taken by the government in order to control or address the threat of terrorism (2). Majority of the respondents also set forth that they do not accept the idea that government authorities can never curtail anyone’s civil liberties, especially when it is essential to their national security (2). In the same survey, the respondents were asked if they rated national security as more important than the protection of their civil liberties. Again, majority of the respondents believed that national security is more important to them, and only about 3% answered that their civil liberties were more important to them (2). About 30% were of the opinion that it was possible to ensure national security without having to curtail civil liberties; and when these 30% were asked what the government should do if it is forced to make the choice between national security and civil liberties, this group split into two with a 2:1 ratio in favor of protecting national security over civil liberties (2). This decidedly increased support for the possible curtailment of civil liberties when national security is imminently threatened. The results of this survey importantly points out that most people put a higher price to their security as compared to their civil liberties. They believe that there are times when it may be necessary to let go of their usual liberties in order to help secure their safety and security. When a survey of a similar nature was undertaken in the United States, similar results were also seen with four out of five Americans saying that they would give up some of their liberties in the name of national security (3). Four out of ten of the respondents also indicated that they feared the threat that terrorists might bring to their family; and about one third of the respondents agreed to the implementation of measures which would make it easier for authorities to access their private e-mail and telephone conversations just to make sure that the national security is protected. Majority of the respondents even agreed to carry identification cards bearing their fingerprints (3). They recognized that, in the end, these are measures that would help weed out terrorists in the society and ultimately keep them safe. The importance of taking more drastic measure in securing our safety and security is also important because the largest terrorist group in the world – the Al-Qaeda – is continuing to build-up its activities in unmonitored areas of Pakistan (4). Intelligence reports reveal that this group is continuing to train its followers; is being monetarily supported by its allies and by sympathizers; and it is building an effective and extensive communication network. Many critics point out that this build-up has been made possible because the attention of the United States has been trained on Iraq (4). While the US directed its vital military forces to Iraq, the Al-Qaeda group and its leader remained at large. Some government authorities also pointed out that the Al-Qaeda may be poised again to launch an attack on US soil. While no credible evidence has been unearthed on this claim, it cannot be denied that that threat is ever present in our soil (4). Moreover, reports have also established that it is easy enough to obtain official documents to buy and handle radioactive materials which can be used to build dirty bombs (4). This fact is alarming to note because the liberties we allow may be the very weapons used by terrorists in order to perpetuate their terrorist activities. This brings about the importance of suspending or limiting those same liberties in order to minimize or eliminate threats to our national security. The report also emphasizes that terrorist threats are very much real and are more than just media or political exaggeration (4). Author and political analyst Cathy Young (5) assessed some of the terrorist activities in recent years as incompetent attempts to disrupt the peace; however, she was quick to emphasize that even if these attempts would not produce major consequences, their effects would still bring about significant disruptions in people’s lives. She also emphasized that some of these inept attempts, like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, were dismissed as amateur attempts; and yet, in 2001, the attack could no longer be dismissed and they were certainly not inept or amateur attempts (5). The argument set forth by those who advocate the protection of civil liberties at all times seem to imply that the methods that would be employed by government authorities in order to protect national security are methods which would be serious violations of people’s civil rights. Young negates this perception. She acknowledges the fact that the government indeed, in its arrogance, violated some vital safeguards on civil liberties, like when it intercepted some telephone calls for security reasons just after the September 11 attacks (5). However, these are not sufficient reasons for the government to dismiss important measures which would help safeguard our security; and these measures would likely curtail civil liberties. Minor incidents should not be easily dismissed and should not make us complacent about measures to prevent other terrorist attacks. Young (5) sets forth that multiple terrorist attacks represent dark times for the country and she challenges the civil libertarians to take a different approach to ensure the people’s safety and to show that the sacrifices being made in the name of national security will not make the people safer or that there are other ways of securing our safety without bending our basic principles of freedom. She also emphasizes that these civil libertarians cannot continue to persevere in their principles about protecting liberty in the face of losses in human life (5). Political analysts Moens and Collacott (6) emphasize that the curtailment of civil liberties when threats of terrorism are present may not necessarily be dismissed by libertarians. There are criteria which may be used in order to ensure a balance between the protection of national security and the protection of civil liberties. First and foremost, they point out that historical precedents may be considered as one of these factors (6). Authors pointed out that in 1952, a decision of the Supreme Court mentioned that historically military commissions have been recognized for meeting immediate requirements related to war. And these agencies and commissions have been adapted depending on the particular instance existing at said time (6). In not so many words, such decision implied that the immediate needs of a war or an imminent threat which may also be seen in the current era of terrorism necessitated the need for the curtailment of civil liberties (6). The authors also emphasized the revocability of the initiative. In effect, this requirement, asks if the initiative is revocable and if it will have serious and lasting impact on liberty and democracy (6). According to Moens and Collacott, suspending civil liberties may not necessarily have a long-term effect. The authors cite the case of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, when he suspended his writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln believed that the curtailment of civil liberties during war time would not significantly affect civil liberties during peacetime (6). The authors also emphasized out that in the current war against terrorism, there is no particular duration which can obviously be seen (6). Since the threat of terrorism is still very much present, the end of this war is still not here; therefore, the curtailment of civil liberties may be justified in the name of a war that is still being waged. The location of the imposed activities which actually curtail civil liberties can also be considered (6). The curtailment of civil liberties in the borders and other entry points into the country are necessary checks which are often implemented in order to protect national security. These checks are often part of the routine checks being undertaken in borders; and since the possibility of allowing the entry of potential terrorists is greater in the borders, these checks should be allowed and not considered as unconstitutional (6). However, checks which are being conducted within the national roads on commuting citizens in the hope of identifying threats to national security are considered a curtailment of civil liberties. These actions would seem like ‘fishing expeditions’ on the part of authorities; and these acts may indeed lead to further abuses of power. Moens and Collacott (6) also express that the nature of the threat must also be considered when attempting to strike a balance between national security and civil liberties. Many Muslim-Americans think of themselves as Muslims first, and Americans second. About 8% of them also believe that suicide bombing is justified and some of them declined to answer the question. For Muslim Americans in the 18-29 age group, the above questions registered at higher percentages (6). These answers present grave threats to our security within our borders. It is alarming to note that while these Muslim-Americans are within our borders, their loyalty and their allegiance is to their Muslim ideologies. It is therefore important to be able to curtail the rights of these Muslim-Americans when there is a clear and imminent threat to our security. The likelihood of success is also an important factor which can be considered in attempts to balance national security and the protection of civil liberties. The authors cited Professor Dershowitz as he emphasized that our natural aversion to torture in almost all circumstances should be reconsidered on the premise that it is a tool that actually works; and we have to bear in mind that the alternative we may be opting for in not allowing torture is the loss of human lives (6). In this age where the terrorists are prepared to do any and all possible means to perpetuate their ends, we must also be prepared to use what we can to protect our national security. Another political analyst (7) points out the case of Israel which is currently battling an aggressive war against terrorism. Many international organizations claim that Israel is widely violating the civil liberties of its people in the name of their counter-terrorist activities (7). However, Dinstein was able to uncover that Israel’s violations of civil liberties is actually very minimal. It is so minimal that Israel risked the release of most suspected terrorists, and only detained about 15 out of 300,000 of these terrorists (7). With these actions, many analysts emphasize that no other country has taken the risk of exposing its wartime population to the risk of terrorism for the sake of the protection of civil liberties (7). And the question will forever hang in the balance – whether or not Israel will pay dearly for the risk that they have taken, and would we be as bold in taking these risks as well? In an article by Afeef (8), he points out that gun ownership in the United States has become rampant and has become too easy a privilege granted to the people. And many of these gun owners take too many liberties with their gun use. He cites instances where violent activities and shootings have taken place in the United States due to white supremacist movements, due to gang violence, and due to terrorist activities. The point that Afeef is trying to make is that terrorism can actually be perpetuated by anyone who owns a gun; it is not a practice exclusive only to terrorists (8). Consequently, Afeef smartly points out that curtailing civil liberties in the United States in the name of national security does not seem to be a far-fetched idea especially when the current civil situation in the US is considered. He also emphasizes that some of the amendments in the constitutions have already been violated in the name of this war against terror (8). These compromises and violations show clear precedence of the fact that the practice of eliminating or repealing the right to bear arms can actually be an easy assignment to accomplish (8). However, in the face of reality, this move will actually be met with great objection from libertarians. This is an unfortunate circumstance because guns can potentially give terrorists and militant groups a simple and convenient enough weapon to perpetuate their ends. Afeef further points out that as long as these guns are easily accessible and their ownership rights protected by civil liberties, the threat of terrorism are much closer and even more imminent. Now terrorists can easily walk into our shops, restaurants, classrooms, movie theatres, and other public areas and open fire (8). Lawyer and political analyst Hyland, Jr. (9) emphasized that the curtailment of civil liberties in time of war is a necessary byproduct of the war and of the survival of the country. He quotes Judge Learned Hand when he said that a society where the citizens believe that there is no restriction on their freedom can dangerously turn into a society where freedom is only in the hands of the violent and the lawless few (9). In the midst of counter-terrorist attacks being carried out by authorities, these authorities hands’ are often tied by legal restrictions which have served only to profit lawyers and litigators, and has hardly made possible solid moves against terrorist activities. Hyland, Jr. (9) also sets forth that by refusing to defer to the actions of the executive and implementing agencies, these judicial and legal proceedings actually destabilize, rather than uphold national security in the current war against terrorism. And while we are in the process of nitpicking about the legalities and the protection of civil liberties, these terrorists are already reloading, amassing strength, developing more terrorist weapons, and pretty soon they will fire on us yet again. Analysts and authors Lavin and Stossel (10) for the Atlantic Online magazine sought to evaluate various authors and expert writings on the conflict between the protection of national security and the protection of civil liberties. They cited the American history professor Posner who wrote that public safety and liberty cannot absolutely be given preference over the other; that they are both important, although depending on the circumstances existing at any particular given time, one may actually given more importance than the other. Posner also pointed out that instances of threats to the American national security, like the secession of the South, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Tet offensive, were all instances when threats to the national security were not prioritized (10). And again, like most of the authors cited in this paper, Posner pointed out that in instances when the threat to our national security is high, civil liberties should be curtailed because the actual benefits of such actions would be far more than the price of our abridged civil liberties (10). Conclusion I believe that the threat of terrorism warrants the curtailment of civil liberties because terrorism is a clear and imminent threat to our society. It is a war that has not ended yet, therefore, the attack may come at anytime from anywhere and from any one. As we put more value to protecting our civil liberties, we are only making it easier for these terrorist groups to attack and to endanger our lives and our national security. There are also appropriate ways for us to strike a balance between national security and civil liberties. These factors help make certain compromises a little easier to make. We take on too many risks when we fail to control or curtail civil liberties, and these risks can ultimately cost human lives. And I am very much sure that such costs are harder to bear as compared to sacrifices and compromises in civil liberties. Curtailing certain civil liberties in this era of terrorism will bring about a safer society where terrorist activities would be much harder to perpetuate. However, I am very much sure that the sensibilities of many libertarians would make the curtailment of civil liberties difficult to implement. Works Cited 1. Glasser, S. (28 April 2005) Global Terrorism Statistics Released: Clearinghouse Data Show Sharp Rise. Washington Post. Retrieved 25 November 2009 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042702096.html 2. King, A. (28 February 2005) Big majority puts security against terrorism ahead of civil liberties. Telegraph UK. Retrieved 24 November 2009 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1484573/Big-majority-puts-security-against-terrorism-ahead-of-civil-liberties.html 3. Trading Freedom for Security. (17 August 2006) Donklephant. Retrieved 24 November 2009 from http://donklephant.com/2006/08/17/poll-trading-freedom-for-security/ 4. Al-Qaeda strongest since 2001: US report. (12 July 2007) South Asia News. Retrieved 25 November 2009 from http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/news/article_1329005.php/Al-Qaeda_strongest_since_2001_US_report 5. Young, C. (31 July 2007) Why civil libertarians shouldnt be cavalier about terrorism. Reason. Retrieved 24 November 2009 from http://reason.com/archives/2007/07/26/gut-feelings-and-real-threats 6. Moens, A. and Collacott, M. (2008) Immigration policy and the terrorist threat in Canada and the United States. Canada: Fraser Institute. pp. 113-123 7. Dinstein, Y. (1989) Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Volume 1; Volume 1971. Tel Aviv: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 11-15 8. Afeef, J. (March 4, 2005) In the fight against terrorism, some rights must be repealed. AltMuslim. Retrieved 23 November 2009 from http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2188/ 9. Hyland, Jr. W. (2008) Law v. National Security: When Lawyers Make Terrorism Policy. University of Richmond. Retrieved 23 November 2009 from 10. Lavin, T. and Stossel, S. (6 February 2002) Security Versus Civil Liberties. The Atlantic Online. Retrieved 23 November 2009 from http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/liberties.htm Read More