Human Security As National Security

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

The discrimination of the United States against undesirable ideologies is, in essence, the very action that was feared about other countries. Author Regin Schmidt wrote about how the FBI set up political surveillance systems in foreign nations to prevent this kind of power the government had over the people from being exported to the U.S. Unbenounced to the public, however, the real threat was not in any foreign nation, but in the domestic government. Schmidt also went on to explain how President Truman attempted to make substantial revisions to foreign policy when enacting the Truman Doctrine. This belief of America being a promiseland is shown today when the United States continually forces itself into wars in an attempt to press its

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

The need to protect National Security is far more important than individual privacy. The greatest part of living in the United States of America is the freedom that we have. That freedom and the right to live freely is protected by various government agencies. From time to time, the privacy a person has may have to be invaded to guarantee the security of the country and other citizens. Everyone has the right to not have their life controlled by the government, but it has the right to make sure that citizens are not doing anything to threaten the security of

National security is the ability to protect our borders through homeland security while upholding the rights of nation. Privacy when openly tampered with is distorted. Nobody acts the same knowingly being watched. Information finds another way. There have been studies on lesser issues like workers. There is more productivity when people think they are being watched. The same when our liberties are at stake. What are people to do when it’s done for the wrong reasons? Like when an African American see’s a sign that separates white and color bathrooms. Another would be when the Jews were forced to where a star then live separately in their own projects. The US jokes about our nation being like fraternity. Every new group gets picked on. The Jew’s for being good with money. The Mexicans for being illegal’s and now it’s the Arab’s turn. But Arab’s are all terrorist somehow. We have seen terror before from the Unabomber, the KKK, and columbine shooting. How do we keep up with inflation? The government finds one way to gather information and terrorist adapt. When civil liberties get trampled in the process more anti-American groups rise to the occasion creating more danger inside America and out.

 This Journal make us think about how the CIA and FBI are profiling people and that it needs to change. The claims fulfill the article's purpose because they talk about different events that shows why this needs to change. However the amount of evidence is very scarce .Nevertheless , it doesn't take away from the audience's captivity due to the fact it talks about event that everyone could relate to.

The shocking tragedy on September 11, 2001 altered the course of American national security. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, homeland security was rarely debated as a hot topic, even within the small circle of policy elites (Kamarck, 2013, p. 34). The only prior homeland attack on America was Pearl Harbor and this was not on U.S. mainland. Many Americans were shocked that such a tragedy could occur on American soil and they are still shocked to this day. People are still recovering from this tragic event. The government knew that the country’s enemies still posed an enormous threat to the nation’s security. In response to the events that took place on 9/11, the United States Congress passed the USA/Patriot Act, which intensified the surveillance powers held by the federal government through the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies. This act increased national airport security procedures, metro security in most major U.S. cities, and extended the government’s capacity to spy on citizens.

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.

The first argument supporting the statement that national security is more important than protection of individual rights is the increased threat of terroristic attacks, which are very dangerous, carefully planned, locally targeted and generously funded

Security can be defined as the “freedom from danger, risk, etc. with the absence of threats to assimilated principles” or a “low chance of damage to assimilated principles.” However, the word security originates from the Latin Securus, which means “carefree”. Notice that the very definition of the word clues to the term “freedom”. The aforementioned definition of security is very general. It does not stipulate the individual whose security is at issue or the types of values pliable to being secured. The security of people (“human security”) is understood to extend beyond national security, also comprising of economic welfare, the health of the environment, cultural identity, and political rights. Security began to take on a diverse set of restrictions with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. We would see a drastic change after September 11, 2011.

are critics of the concept of human security which claim that if all the components of well-being are

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”

The tension between national security and individual privacy has long existed even before the development of digitized information. Recently, two main forces have advanced the debate over this balance to the forefront of the public eye: 1) the proliferation of data by private sector companies and 2) the heightened need for homeland security and public defense. With the rapid evolution of technology, companies have aggregated pools of consumer data to improve upon internal decision making. In some cases, however, this data can be leveraged to ensure national security and public safety. This juxtaposition of enterprise and security results in a blurring of the line dividing public and private sector responsibilities. The question becomes an issue of moral obligation versus legal responsibility. What are we as consumers and citizens willing to sacrifice in exchange for safety? And does the private sector inevitably succumb to obligations originating from the public sector?

The purpose for an IT security policy is to provide “strategy, policy, and standards regarding the security of and operations in cyberspace, and encompasses the full range of threat reduction, vulnerability reduction, deterrence, international engagement, incident response, resiliency, and recovery policies and activities, including computer network operations, information assurance, law enforcement, diplomacy, military, and intelligence missions as they relate to the security and stability of the global information and communications infrastructure” ("Cyberspace policy RevIew", 2016).

Security is a central concern in the study of international relations (IR). Yet despite being the focus of considerable scrutiny, few agreed conceptions of security exist (Buzan, 1991; Huysmans, 2006; Terriff et al., 1991; McSweeney, 1999; Morgan, 1992; Croft 2012; Smith 2000). Buzan even goes as far to posit that the very conception of security is “essentially contested” and thus poses an unsolvable debate (Buzan, People, states and fear; Little, ideology and change, p35). These disagreements have created rifts in the security community over what can be threatened and indeed what can even be considered a threat. Part of the complexity to the subject is derived from the numerous opposing and often contradicting theoretical perspectives within international relations itself, of which security is a sub-field (Terrif et al. 1991 – Security studies today). This paper thereby seeks to trace the various theoretical strands of security studies with the hope of elucidating how and why Islam, and Muslims immigrants have been increasingly portrayed as a threat and ‘Otherised’ in Britain.