Civil Liberties And Terrorism Essay

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 USA Patriot Act grants government agencies powers in terrorism investigations that it already uses in non-terrorist crimes. Several law abiding citizens have been approached, questioned, and interrogated without probable cause of any criminal activity, basically for engaging in political speech protected by the constitution (Bailie, 2012). The Act freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for government activities, which make it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government are taking.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was originally enacted to protect entities from abuse of surveillance for national security reasons. FISA contains policies associated with the process of gathering foreign intelligence by the intelligence community for national security reasons (Addicott & McCaul, 2008, p. 46-47). FISA also consisted of a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which had eleven unnamed federal judges who issued warrants regarding surveillance or searches for the intelligence community, and a court review board, which consisted of three federal judges who reviewed the actions of the secret court. After the passing of the Patriot Act by the Bush Administration, the NSA was essentially given full authority to collect information on citizens without a warrant, thereby circumventing the FISC, and Bush fully defended the NSA, stating “‘The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.’” (Schwartz 2009

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

Since the passing of FISA came after a widespread finding of warrantless wiretapping by a number of different government entities, Congress along with the Carter administration, needed to carefully craft a bill that not only reconciled national security needs to conduct domestic surveillance, but also continued to protect individual liberties such as that of the first and fourth amendments. The once top-secret Carter administration memos regarding FISA offer a first-hand glimpse at the thinking that went into

While many claim that the Patriot Act is an attack on Americans’ civil liberties, there is a strong case for the Act and the changes it brings. An article published in the Washington Post looks at the claims made by the ACLU and systematically pokes gaping holes in them. For one, the claim that NSLs can be issued without a judge’s approval is only partially true. While a normal search warrant is issued to law enforcement by a civilian judge, “the FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court.”(Mac Donald, In Defense). The idea of a federal judge issuing an NSL to spy on someone who “wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy"(Mac Donald, In Defense) as the ACLU claims, is inconceivable. Another critique made by the ACLU is against the Act’s “Sneak and Peek” provision. While described as a blatant power grab by the government, there is a long precedent for the delay of notice regarding a search warrant. Especially when such a

The Patriot Act has voided many right granted by the Bill of Rights; the Fifth Amendment grants the right to due process and freedom from being held without charge and the Sixth Amendment grants the right to legal representation. In the United States Americans are now being held in jail without a formal charge and without the ability of confronting the witness. Under the Fifth Amendment every person is afford the right to due process. For example, Albador Al-Hazmi was an American Citizen who was held incommunicado for days as a material witness (p.131). Hazmi was denied due process and also held without representation of an attorney. The Sixth Amendment under the Patriot Act denied American’s legal representation for months and legal conversation

September 11, 2001 sparked many different feelings into the hearts of Americans. People sprang into action to seek revenge and protect America’s precious soils from another deadly attack by reinforcing America’s strength through her government. The men and women of Congress retaliated to the terrorist attacks by drafting and passing the USA PATRIOT Act on October 26, 2001, which stands for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The bill was moved through Congress with amazing speed and little hesitation. After the passing, the unsuspecting citizens of America were bombarded with many new rules and regulations that

This debate is important to Americans since civil liberties concern the rights of the people.

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

Every day, the balance between civil liberties and national security is threatened. Civil liberty is the freedom of a citizen to exercise usual rights without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government. For example, freedom of speech or assembly being stopped because the government disagrees. We have freedom of speech and other liberties guaranteed by the laws of country like the Bill of Rights here in the United States. But what happens when national security or law enforcement over steps boundaries to keep us secure and violates the rights of citizens. An article called Police and National Security: Local Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism After 9/11, examines three national security law challenges, namely protecting national

Terrorism and the United States A cloud of anthrax spores looming in the sky of San Diego California

have made him one of the most feared and hated men in history. Stalin also used

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives.

On August 2nd 1990, Iraq invaded the small oil rich country of Kuwait on its southeastern border. Iraq claimed that Kuwait was a long time province from the 1800’s and early 1900s’, whose lands belonged under control of Iraq, a so-called province. Saddam Hussein also argued that Kuwait was pumping oil from an oil field that was on the border of the two countries and belonged to Iraq. Upon gaining control of Kuwait, Hussein was able to eliminate his previous debt to Kuwait and gain it’s substantial oil wealth, roughly 10% of the worlds oil supply. Regardless of the motives behind Iraq’s invasion, under international law, none of Iraq’s claims against Kuwait justified its invasion of that country.