Liberty versus Security in Today's World Essay

“ Liberty vs. security: An old debate renewed in age of terror” by Haynes explained how the NSA created the program to prevent the next terrorist attack but Section 215 was too costly when it came to money and civil liberties. That was before Edward Snowden brought it into light but thanks to him, Congress pass the USA Freedom act to terminate the program.

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

Prioritizing individual rights and those of the public has long been the subject of debate. Do the rights of the individual outweigh those of the community? Arguments for both are strong and valid, yet defining the line between individual rights and public safety proves to be challenging. Individual rights are vital to living freely, however freedom without security is not possible as citizens are not truly free if they are not safe.

This case has had an effect on society because it shows how the rights of an individual were considered less important than the administration of justice. This case marked a turning point in the Supreme Court 's thinking. With the introduction of the exclusionary rule, the Court devised a way of enforcing the Fourth Amendment. Since evidence seized unlawfully could no longer be used in federal court against a defendant, a prosecutor might lose or drop a case for lack of evidence. Having the police be careful next time to obtain search warrants and make sure their searches and seizures are legal.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the exclusionary rule is “a legal rule that bars unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court proceedings” [1].The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using evidence that was obtained in an illegal or unconstitutional manner. This includes evidence gathered from an unreasonable search or seizure. Any evidence which falls under the exclusionary rule; that leads to the ´finding of further evidence will also be excluded. The initial evidence, and subsequent evidence will not be used in the trial. The exclusionary rule is a remedy, not an individual constitutional right.

Constant controversy have aggravated several Americans since the Patriot Act goes slightly against the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment is the right of people to be secure in their homes, papers, and effect, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw, n.d.). The Patriot Act was implemented for the creation of new laws and for the amendments of current ones for the intent of more efficient terrorism prevention and investigation. The act made changes to the already present amendments, which entitled privacy to American citizens, including the following: wiretap statute, electronic communications privacy act, computer fraud and abuse act, foreign intelligence surveillance act, family education rights and privacy act, pen register and trap and trace statute, money laundering act, immigration and nationality act, money laundering control act, bank secrecy act, right to financial privacy act, and fair credit reporting act (Department of Government and Justice Studies, n.d.). As a result, the Patriot Act contains all of the same checks and balances that the American public has become accustomed to seeing in their government testimonies (List of Pros and Cons of The Patriot Act,

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

In 1784, Benjamin Franklin stated, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It is hard to say whether or not Benjamin Franklin is right due to the fact that we face different struggles in this day and age that people in Napoleon Bonaparte’s and Franklin’s era did not have to worry about. Our situations regarding security and freedom, especially after September 11, 2001, dramatically changed as citizens realized how often their everyday lives were jeopardized with each new discovery and invention concerning weapons or violence.

Benjamin Franklin once said that, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The Fourth Amendment established that citizens have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures, although rising technologies raises the question: when does national security infringe upon individual liberty. Much of the conflict has to do with the schism between the influencing ideologies classical republicanism and natural rights. The interpretation on how far this right extends has been heavily debated.

Liberty and public welfare are two conditions which often conflict in society, with governments and other ruling powers forced to compromise and balance between the two. Take for example the balance between civil liberties and security in the United States. Following the September 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S., the government established numerous security protocols, including the enactment of surveillance legislation, the USA PATRIOT Act, to prevent further attacks from occurring. This raises an important conflict - is security paramount to liberty or vice versa? My contention is that the USA PATRIOT Act and similar security measures which monitor communication and conduct between people are an excessive infringement upon privacy and,

This affirms that national security is more important than just individual privacy just like the right to free speech does not allow you to shout fire in a crowded theatre, because people may be killed in a rush for the exits. On the same note, it is believed that Americans should allow governments and law enforcement agencies to control certain private actions that may act as security threats to the general public (Oram and Viega,

Many privacy violations are deemed justified because of the increasingly difficult war on terrorism, but that is arguably not a valid defense. “…privacy and safety are not conflicting parameters and that we must rethink our security legislation”

For the past few decades, the relationship between the government and the people’s personal privacy has been a widely controversial topic in the United States. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, privacy is the state of being away from the public’s attention. The right to privacy is becoming increasingly harder for individuals to keep hold of, and a primary cause of this is the widening of the scope of the government for the sake of national security. For over a decade, there has been ethical abuse by the United States government which costs the taxpayers money and threatens the future privacy of the people. Ever since the tragic attacks on the country in September of 2001, the government, under the pretense of preserving national security and preventing future terrorist attacks, has been passing ill-defined legislation and launching undisclosed programs which overstep constitutional boundaries and impede on citizens’ rights. These initiatives place a burden on the government’s budget and employ funds which could serve a better purpose if invested into more justifiable causes. The issue of government interference will only progress as technological advancements over time make the illegal tracking, surveillance, and obtainment of private information more effective and efficient. The United States government must take a step back, halt illegal and unconstitutional programs, and seek congressional approval before making any future decisions which affect

The concept of government surveillance is anchored on the US constitution, particularly in the Patriot Act. The act was passed in 2001 following the September 11 attack that claimed thousands of innocent lives (Alexander, 2011). Since then, the US government sought to make America much safer