Antierrorism And Civil Liberties In America

An American’s civil liberties are among some of the most important rights awarded to a citizen. After 9/11 some of those liberties were taken away by the expansion of executive power, the National Security

There are moments when civil liberties should be curtailed in democratic countries like the US and Canada, in order to maintain national security. While this is true, there are also moments that an individual’s civil liberty should be maintained whereas it is not. Consequently, governments should make clear boundaries as to which occasions civil liberties should be restricted. For instance, both the Patriotic Act and the Anti-terrorist Act allowed rover wiretapping which are needed to deal with terrorists who have a sophisticated knowledge of how technology works.

The final assignment for this course is a Final Paper. The purpose of the Final Paper is to give you an opportunity to apply much of what you have learned about American national government to an examination of civil liberties in the context of the war on terror. The Final Paper represents 20% of the overall course grade.

2). Domestic terrorism is usually committed by citizens of the United States, and documentation of terrorist activities on American soil have dated back to the 1950s. The 1970s heighten domestic terrorism by a “rash of skyjacking”, that is, taking a commercial airline hostage (Sauter & Carafano, 2012). Skyjacking incidents compelled the FBI and CIA to develop undercover strategies to enforce terrorist groups; however, these tactics lead to civil right violations. The federal agencies covert tactics and aggressive intelligence collection, “prompted congressional hearings and led to dramatic restrictions on domestic intelligence operations, including the creation of a bureaucratic wall between intelligence gathering and law enforcement” (Sauter & Carafano, 2012, p. 25). The “wall” that was previously stated halted information sharing between the intelligence community and local law enforcement. Communication and information sharing prevents redundancy in high priority investigations, and it could also provide first responders advance notice in life threatening

Civil liberties are our natural rights, such as freedom, equality and pursuit of happiness, which the government cannot modify by making new laws or by judicial interpretation. Civil liberties are important because it helps restrain the power of the government to dictate how we behave. This ensures that our daily life is not interrupted by authoritative figures that may just try to intentionally cause harm. Civil liberties contribute to the protection of our personal choices, such as the right to abortions. The bill of rights is important to civil liberties because it does not allow the government to govern our personal lives. Unfortunately, with this war against terrorism, we have given those authoritative figures the ability to mandate

The war on terrorism truly reveals the constitutional government’s effectiveness in times of terrorist peril. Although, the United States has not been extremely successful at combating radical onslaughts the true effectiveness of our government exists in its ability to balance liberty and the nation’s security. Originally, when forming the Constitution the founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances that keeps any branch of the government from forming into an omniscient domineering power much like a monarchy or dictatorship. Albeit, many people consider this system to be the exact thing that stops us from truly defeating terrorism as any branch of the government has the ability to overturn any effective action they deem unnecessary. However, it’s the government’s lack of efficiency against terrorist aggression that benefits us in the long run because if we were to lose the vital checks on power we could ultimately lose many of our civil liberties and freedoms.

The United States experienced one of the biggest scaled Domestic Terror Attacks on eleventh September 2001. These assaults against our incredible country were done with the capturing of numerous aircraft transporters. The repercussions of these appalling demonstrations left the aggregate decimation of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and other relevant areas. After these occasions the USA Patriot Act of 2001 was passed, and the Department of Homeland Security started to devise and execute the first of numerous missions and conventions to alleviate any further dangers to the United States. Since the sanction of the Patriot Act, there have been various indications of fear based oppressor plots and thwarted assaults against the United States

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

Sometimes it is far easier to do what is best for oneself rather than what is best for the group. This decision is usually motivated by fear. Fear is generally a destructive force in society, allowing the strong to take advantage of the weak.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

Are the civil liberties of the citizens of the United States sacrificed during the airport security checks with the use of body scanners for the sake of national security? This week thousands of Americans will board airplanes to head to their Thanksgiving destinations, and they will need to undergo several security checks in order to advance to their flight. Since September 11, 2001, the vulnerability and fear arose in the United States citizens about the security tactics in place to protect our nation. One area of concern was the airport security measures that allowed al-Qaeda and their associates to take control of United State’s airplanes to carry out their plan of attack. The fear of another terrorist attack taking place on the airplanes resulted in extraordinary security tactics immediately emerging to protect the citizens. Further instances of other threats required more advanced security equipment to be installed, such as the body scanners. Statistics revealed there were an estimated 793 scanners (full body scanners) in use in March 2016 in more than 157 airports in the United States (Jansen). All of these security measures have taken place with the expense of sacrificing civil liberties. Although, the body scanners were developed to protect the people, the civil liberties of the United States citizens are sacrificed for the sake of national security through invasion of privacy, inefficiencies, misuse, and expense.

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

The moral rule is not "when one is about to kill you, pre-empt him and kill him first," but rather "when one is about to kill you, do everything necessary in order to thwart his intention." Accordingly, if there is no alternative to killing him, strike first. If there is an alternative other than killing him, thwart his intention without striking first, without killing him.

Ben Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The main question is, what’s more important, our liberties or our safety? Although security is a major necessity for our country, is it worth losing our human rights? Keeping our liberties is more crucial and has a slightly greater significance than increasing security.

Since September 11 2001, the type of terrorist attacks which have emerged have begun to have major ramifications on how states are able to aspire to the ideals of liberty, equality, security and efficiency. States have changed the way they conduct policy and focus on efforts to face the challenge of how efforts to increase security may have curtailed citizens’ liberties (Haubrich, 400). The anti-terrorism strategies and tactics that democratic states have employed in order to neutralize terrorist threats have varied widely. Some have been reactive, others proactive or preventative. However, all measures have been concerned about the trust citizens have in those in power and the legitimacy of their rule as well as protecting