National Security Is More Important Than Human Rights

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 general public gives an problem with the government surveillance as a media for invading others privacy. With the government monitoring, collecting, and retaining people's personal data, one side would claim that it is an infringement of their freedom to the rights to privacy. While the National security associations justifies the reason for monitoring would be to maintain order. Their ways to maintain order would be to monitor criminal and terrorist activity and to detect incoming threats, terrorists, or problems that would harm their country. This issue shows that freedom cannot exist without order. Although the general public wants their freedom of their privacy, they can not achieve their most of their desires because it puts their lives at risk without protection. Order is necessary in order to have freedom. It is impossible to attain entire freedom for a cause, however, it is possible to attain freedom to a certain

The personal rights that lead to a good life are important but the most important right is the right to privacy. People have been talking for years about the right of privacy. The use of computers made access to Americans personal data very easy. The government knowledge about people’s privacy and personal information can be a benefit to Americans but it also can lead to a serious damage. From the bright side, knowing these information makes it easier to pass social security checks, making medical

“How much freedom are Americans willing to give up for safety from terrorists?” We the people of the United States are willing to give away our natural born rights to be a safer nation. Millions of innocent lives were lost on 9-11-01. A problem not widely discussed in the United States much until September 11, 2001 the date of the attack from terrorist organizations on the world trade centers’ New York towers in New York City. The United States of America has not worried much about self-defense or in this case homeland security. Due to the actions on September 11th homeland security has been the main goal of many politicians and voters. Homeland security builds coalitions and partnerships, protects civil rights and civil liberties, and

In U.S., the bill of rights protects civil liberties. People in the United States, hold civil rights, which are those privileges, immunities and rights held by all Americans and political rights, which are the rights that are restricted to those who are entitled to participate in elections, as candidates or voters. The distinction is important since not all are eligible to vote though they all should enjoy their freedoms. This may no longer be feasible as majority of the civil rights are taken to include the political rghts in this age.

Terrorists attacks in America should not reduce or take away civil liberties because it unnecessarily increases government power, gives a false state of security, and goes against the concepts of liberty on which the United States was founded. In order to understand why these three things are important we must determine what are civil liberties.

The Bill of Rights is paramount to every single human being in the United States. It is the collection of every right a person has, and everyone should know their rights to protect themselves. The United States is slowly becoming less and less free, but not in a restrictive way, it is for the safety of its citizens. Terrorism became more apparent in our country after September 11th, and thus the Patriot Act was passed. This allowed the FBI to survey any suspected terrorist without legal permission (a warrant.) It is not restrictive; we are not limited to what we can do beyond reasonable measures. Today, at any given moment in a busy city, we are on camera from multiple different angles. Also, our emails

After losing 2,977 lives one fateful September morning, we realized we left the doors to our country wide open to attack. As a result, we ramped up our security and instituted new programs to combat terrorism to make ourselves invulnerable to similar attacks. But as the government began to develop programs within the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) to prevent such an attack from ever happening again, the government began to infringe on the rights which were laid down in the Constitution by our founding fathers. Although the American government protected its people from another possible attack, the government itself attacked its own people by denying the rights which it formerly recognized.

This essay focuses on the final topic of week number eight, “Is the Patriot Act a necessary protection against terrorism or a threat to our civil liberties?” The Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism), has brought much controversy between national security and individual rights. We have seen numerous terrorist attacks abroad, such as the attack of U.S. airliners, U.S. embassies, and U.S. military bases during the 1980’s. Well-planned terrorist attacks continued into the 1990s and into our current year (Sauter & Carafano, 2012).

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.

Every year people from all over the world come to the United States for a myriad of reasons. Some to seek employment, some education, and others to seek safe haven from violence and oppression from foreign governments. Regardless of the reason, the beauty of the United States is that the protections afforded by the constitution apply to anyone within its territory. However, since the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, the protections of the constitution have since become a blurred line. Legislation such as the Patriot Act, and methods in which law enforcement conduct operations to combat terrorism have pushed the limits of the constitution. Finding the balance of working within the confines of the constitution is a constant challenge. The growing challenge elicits the potential for legal, policy and ethical issues, which ultimately undermine the very purpose of what the constitution is intended to protect.

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

today we call them human rights" (McShea 34). The issue of whether or not to