Essay on Homeland Security is More Important than Civil Liberties

One way his rights were violated was in the fact that he never had the presumption of innocence. John Lindh did not have the luxury of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. As shown in the article Lost in the Jihad which quotes Attorney General John Ashcroft professing his guilt at a press conference, in advance of Lindh’s indictment, relating Lindh as “an Al Qaeda-trained terrorist” (qtd. in Mayer, 1).

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

The ACLU talks about several groups that are unfairly targeted by the Act to the extent that the constitution is being violated. I have already talked about Arab and Muslims but even neighbors are supposed to report anything that “appears” suspicious. Turning people against each other is not only a reminder of the above mentioned historical events but it also leads to fear in a place where none is needed.

Since the terrorist suicide bombed the world trade center and a wing of the pentagon, there has been a change in the relationship between the United States government and the people. The executive branch has taken steps that undermine the principles in the United States constitution. In order to ensure a more democratic society, we have to tell the difference between effective governing and individual freedom. There is one main topic I'm going to talk about how the 1st amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, and 6th amendment are being eroded by the USA PARTRIOT Act which introduced a overabundance of legislative changes which considerably increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United

American citizens favor their civil liberties granted by the law and the Constitution. Civil liberties are freedoms of a citizen granted by the U.S. Constitution without arbitrary government abridgement. They are important because those freedoms protect the people from an oppressive government and other oppressive citizens. These rights include the freedom of assembly, petition, press, religion, speech and civil rights. The rights separate the United States from a tyrannical government. The preservation of civil rights is a keystone of democracy. This allows the United States to be unique from other nations throughout the test of time. Americans also take pride in their freedoms as the Founding Fathers would have wanted them to. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 or also known as the Patriot Act, however, is hampering on American freedoms, pride and the Bill of Rights. The Act was passed right after the September 11 terror attacks as a way to prevent further terrorist attacks in the United States. Although security is a necessary factor in an American’s life, security should not be prioritized over personal freedom. The Patriot Act should be amended because part of the act is unconstitutional, is an attack on Americans’ civil liberties and supports the vilification of Muslim Americans.

On the other hand, opponents claim that The Patriot Act violates Constitutional rights; specifically the 1st and 4th amendments. They claim the government may over use the power given, and have brought to light several examples. One such incident is the case of a prominent Muslim scholar who has been barred from the United States. This scholar was barred to enter US after The Patriot Act was enacted. They also reference the case of a Judge who has invalidated some of Patriot Act provisions and ordered FBI to stop its wide

Traditionally speaking, the government realizes every person has unalienable rights, but it may choose to only recognize those which it deems fit. In times of war, many rights which we feel are inherent may not be acknowledged. For example during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus allowing for public dissenters of the war to be arrested and held without formal charges to prevent antiwar sentiment, and more recently the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act instituted shortly after 11 Sep 01 expanded the government’s power to monitor its citizens and to catch another terrorist before another attack occurred (“Patriot

Legal experts have suggested that the USA Patriot Act weakens elements of several of the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. This includes the First Amendment (freedom of speech and assembly), Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure), Fifth Amendment (right to due process of law), Sixth Amendment (right to speedy, public, and fair trials, right to confront accusers, and right to a criminal defense), and Eighth Amendment (freedom from excessive and cruel & unusual punishment). The Patriot Act has faced ongoing legal challenges by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Every person has the right to undergo a judicial hearing to avoid illegal detention. However, if that person poses threat to the society and the state, there are instances that the said right is overseen where these types of people are quickly detained after capturing. The writ of Habeas Corpus gives the rights to the captured people to undergo judicial trial. But there is also an article in the U.S. Constitution that states that the writ of Habeas Corpus can only be lifted if the people being questioned in involved in a rebellion or pose a threat to the safety of the public. That is why the administration of the previous U.S. President Bush detained all of the people whom they tagged as terrorist and were captured in the war on Afghanistan in 2001. The question now is to what extend must be the actions of an individual in order to undergo proper trial hearing or to just be put in imprisonment without any hearings or trials done? The purpose of this paper is to review issues within Habeas Corpus and GITMO, discuss how policies changing over time affect the dynamic state of United States, and how these changes can make a big impact to the future law making and practice of the country that is why this issue must be evaluated and examined.

Since the introduction of the USA-Patriot Act after 9-11, and with the current and continuous looming threat of terrorism, America has been on the breach of whether the intelligence community is taking advantages and using these to dilute our civil liberties. The tension between civil liberties and Homeland Security is really complex, throw in immigration policy, criminal law, First Amendment and others and it is a recipe for disaster to Americans. We as Americans cherish our civil liberties and believe that because of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that these liberties are protected from and by the Government and are not going to surrender them lightly or compromise them unless it is absolutely necessary, and if then for only a

The average person is willing to look the other way at civil liberties violations if law enforcement is disrupting legitimate threats to national security, not petty crimes. It’s a terrible precedent when the government’s vast spying technology crosses over into routine law enforcement. Whenever the subject of federal government domestic spying programs is broached, the argument is always framed within the confines of a hypothetical circumstance if the government were to establish a technological police state. However, we are already beyond the hypothetical stage and have entered into the preliminary stage. That statement may seem outrageous at first, but consider the fact that the NSA is supposed to only be focused on matters of national security, hence the name National Security Agency. Nor is the agency allowed to spy on American citizens, but an investigative report by Reuters documented how the NSA has for decades been coordinating with U.S. law enforcement agencies to prosecute crimes that have nothing to do with national security.

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

To assess the effectiveness of targeted killings, one of the most debatable targeted killings cases will be evaluated. This case study is about the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a drone attack in Yemen in September 2011. This case study shows the wider legal, ethical and moral complexities related to targeted killings. His selection as a target, targeting and subsequent killing had been authorized by President Obama and led to questions regarding the extent the killing of an individual who once held U.S. citizenship was in compliance with international and U.S. domestic law (Lowenthal, 2009). Al-Awlaki was an U.S. citizen (he held dual U.S. and Yemeni citizenship), he became radicalized, served as a recruiter for al Qaeda, and

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller