Individual Rights Vs National Security Research Paper

Can you imagine that your little town is being attacked or even a natural disaster may be occurring and you have nowhere to go? What would you do? How would you survive? You would have to flee your home away from the tragic disaster. You would have no place to call home and all you would have is the clothes on your back. Some in the process of leaving their town never get to see their family again and are lucky if they survive. This is why I believe that refugees should be allowed into the United States under certain conditions. These include having a positive background, being eligible for a job and respecting our nation as well as the people in it. As the US turns refugees away, thousands of lives are being taken away. We could easily help them by taking them into our country. Although some people that enter the country may commit crimes, that doesn’t mean we should turn all of them away. It would cause way more harm than good. Most crimes that happen in the United States are caused by the people that are US citizens rather than the refugees. All of these innocent lives are just being taken away and as many Americans sit back and do nothing about it. When we could be out there saving lives. Our country has to step in and do something about this serious situation. There are solutions we could use to solve these problems by making sure all people that enter this country are good at heart. Outside of very few exceptions our country is mainly made up of refugees and

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

Much like many white people in the South believed black protestors had no right to infiltrate their cities in the 1960s, a large number of Americans are against the idea of letting refugees or anyone that follows a strongly stereotyped religion into their country. However, like King says, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (78). Over the course of history, the United States have established themselves as a major power with the intentions of helping others. Whether the tactics for this have actually been successful in the past is a different discussion, but if the motives are pure, then this country has a moral and ethical obligation to help those in need. In this case, that would mean allowing these refugees into the country and not continuing to stigmatize an entire group of people any further. This country turned away refugees during World War II, and a portion of them were killed in the Holocaust. The exact same thing could potentially happen if these refugees and muslims are banned from traveling into the United States.

Government and congress knew they had to act upon these attacks and make changes quickly. That year on October 26th, President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act into law. Although the Patriot Act was created to help and better the security for the United States, it violated the privacy and rights of the citizens. This controversy on the Patriot Act went on for a long time. The patriot act violated basic civil liberties of the people. Basically, all in all, Civil liberties is your rights and freedoms given to you by the amendments of the constitution. The First Amendment is supposed to guarantee citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. It also guarantees you your basic rights given to you by the Bill of Rights. Examples include, human rights, individual rights, right to life, right to peacefully assemble, right to petition government for redress, right to property, right to privacy, and right to worship. However, the patriot act violated many of those rights given to the citizens. For example, the patriot act allowed law enforcement to use surveillance against crimes of terror. Before the Patriot Act, courts could permit law enforcement to get electronic surveillance to investigate many ordinary, non-terrorism crimes, such as drug crimes, mail fraud, and passport fraud. Another Example would be the patriot act allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred. This means if you live in an area and there has been terrorist activity, the government is allowed to check your house and your property. They can invade your personal space and belongings to ensure that there is no terrorist activity going

Imagine that you are in an airport trying to flee your country because there is a war going on, all of a sudden you get stopped by a security officer saying that the country you are trying to go to does not allow refugees, What would you do? The debate about refugees has been around since World War Two when Hitler was trying to torture or kill all the jews and other people he did not like. Here in America we did not let refugees into the U.S. during the war and a bunch of them were killed, however some did survive. Some people think that we should let them into the United States of America well, others say they should not be allowed to enter the U.S. In the year of 2016 there was around thirty-eight thousand refugees that were allowed into the United States. There were a bunch of other refugees that applied to come to the united states but got denied, because the U.S. did not choose them or they did not pass the test to become a refugee. The idea that refugees should not be allowed into the united states because they could bring disease, they could be a criminal or a terrorist, and they use up our land and resources deserves some merit. However These arguments do not realise that if we bring them into the United States we could save their lives, or give them better living conditions. In this article I will argue that we should allow refugees into the United States, but only under certain circumstances. Those circumstances are they should be allowed into the united

Several weeks after the horrible terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act was rushed through Congress by Attorney General, John Ashcroft. This particular Act, however, was established with a ruling hand of fear. Life for Americans changed dramatically in those immediate days, weeks, and months after the attack. America had been spoiled with luxury for so long, that the illusion of control had ingrained itself into our very nature as Americans. That act of terror, on September 11, 2001, brought that belief crashing down, almost immediately. Fear and anger were rampant though out America; a dangerous

     The United States of America is a country that is based upon a principle of balancing the rights of an individual, while still preserving public order. The U.S. Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) guarantees every American certain Individual rights. Some of these rights include; freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, a right to due process of law, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment (The 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments). Historically the criminal justice system has preserved these rights of peopled accused of crimes. However on September 11, 2001, the United States became the victim of the largest terrorist attack the World has ever seen. According to Schmalleger in 2003, that

Defining National Security VS Personal Privacy is a matter of looking at the basic nature of each. From research collected there is a consensus that we need balance. Too much of one hurts the other and vise versa. There are a couple of articles that range from Civil Liberties to the birth of public right to know that support the overall claim. Talks about the effects of censorship in different situations like war and peace will help prove that a balance needs to be forged. The problem here isn’t the definition of personal vs national security, but the survival of each in light of each other. There is history in our nation

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

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.

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

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

Terrorists Terrorism/Crime are a big reason that refugees should not be let into the united states. One of the big reasons is that there are a lot of people trying to either get a visa or sneak into our country. “There have been over 400 cases of people sneaking across the border from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, and Syria”. Associated Press 2015)This shows that people who shouldn't be crossing the border are sneaking in with the refugees to cause terrorism to our country. There are very few reasons that people from those countries should ever be entering our country, and them trying to sneak in and illegally come into our country tells us they are probably planning

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of

The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator