National Security And Civil Liberties

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,

An American’s civil liberties are among some of the most important rights awarded to a citizen. After 9/11 some of those liberties were taken away by the expansion of executive power, the National Security

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

1 McGahey 3 Megan McGahey Sherry Sharifian GOVT 2305 71430 20 September 2017 Civil Liberties vs.

There are moments when civil liberties should be curtailed in democratic countries like the US and Canada, in order to maintain national security. While this is true, there are also moments that an individual’s civil liberty should be maintained whereas it is not. Consequently, governments should make clear boundaries as to which occasions civil liberties should be restricted. For instance, both the Patriotic Act and the Anti-terrorist Act allowed rover wiretapping which are needed to deal with terrorists who have a sophisticated knowledge of how technology works.

1. 2 Define Civil Liberties; then define Civil Rights. How are they similar? How do they differ? Which civil sequence has more influence on your life as you know it to be now? Why do you believe this to be so?

One might ask the importance of civil liberties after so many years. The answer is that we are all touched by these liberties every day. Even though civil liberties were embedded into the Bill of Rights in the late 1800’s, we today, as Americans, still have the right to be protected against any abusive power used by the government (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p. 106). Although Americans are protected fully today, it took over a century for all civil liberties to be implemented. With several civil liberties in place, which is most important? Which liberty protects us as Americans, most significantly? I believe all of our civil liberties are equally as beneficial and lead to the safety of every citizen in the United

The final assignment for this course is a Final Paper. The purpose of the Final Paper is to give you an opportunity to apply much of what you have learned about American national government to an examination of civil liberties in the context of the war on terror. The Final Paper represents 20% of the overall course grade.

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

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

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