Should Civil Liberties Be Restricted Analysis

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

National Security Agency (NSA) regulations and tactics’ is an invasion of privacy, an infringement on the Constitutional Amendments, and fails to keep the private or confidential data of Americans safe from hackers.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to ever pass through the US Senate. Its critics use fear mongering tactics to scare people into opposition of an intrusive police state which they believe is inevitable given the government’s new powers. They consider the Act an assault on civil liberties and an invasion of the privacy of innocent American citizens. Yet the real issue is not that the government now has new powers, it’s that the American people do not trust our intelligence agencies to handle these new powers properly while still respecting their rights.

The United States of America is undoubtedly one of the world’s largest and most powerful nations. However, it has been facing the problem of terrorism for many decades, most notably after the tragic events of September 11th. The Patriot Act was passed shortly after these events in response to the acts of terrorism witnessed by the whole nation. At the time, it seemed rational and logical to allow this bill to pass, due to the extreme anger of American citizens, and the willingness to fight against terrorism. However, certain breaches of privacy came with the introduction of the Patriot Act. We as Americans want to feel protected from the threats of terrorism, however, we are not willing to give up certain privacies and liberties in order for that to happen, even when put to a vote.

September 11, 2001 was the day where everything in America had changed. A series of four terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a reaction to this, Congress passed the Patriot Act, severely limiting citizen’s civil liberties as promised by the Constitution. American’s civil liberties and constitutional rights cannot be denied and/or put into jeopardy to protect national security, for it goes against American ideals and may persecute non-partisan individuals, while allowing the executive branch to unconstitutionally abuse their power.

The attacks on the United States of America on September 11th, 2001 fundamentally changed the way the government and its citizens viewed freedom and liberty. With the subsequent enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, security became the government’s top priority. (The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.) Congress, eager to put a law on the books to prevent another attack, fast tracked the bill through both houses in six weeks. It passed by a near unanimous vote, with the majority of dissent coming from Democrats. A highly contentious and debated law, the USA PATRIOT Act infringes on Natural Law and the American citizen’s Civil Liberties. Also it violates the spirit and letter of the United States Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Many amendments in the Constitution are at a direct contrast with the law’s many broadly worded sections, specifically the First Amendment’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly, and the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unwarranted and illegal search and seizure.

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 USA Patriot Act was supposed to help the government find terrorists and prevent another attack, like the attacks on September 11th from happening again. However, there were many constitutional questions that surfaced with regard to the USA Patriot Act. The act gave the government more power than it had before September 11th. It allowed the government to put the rights of citizens aside, when the government thought that a person might be involved with terrorist activity. I will begin by discussing the contents of the USA Patriot Act and what questions might arise. I will then present some scenarios where the Patriot Act was used to justify the civil liberties of Americans being limited, and if the government’s suspicions were correct or

How would one feel if they knew a stranger was watching their every move? Rather than increased security Americans should experience their personal liberties. Citizens privacy is within their rights. With additional security citizens would constantly be watched, scrutinized, and inspected.

The major reason for what makes Canada’s newest anti-terrorism law so controversial is that it compromises the privacy of Canadians, by granting greater power

Reason to Listen: As Daniel Sarewitz writes in Defending Democracy,“The time to start thinking about the impact of security technologies on democratic rights is during R&D.” Now, more than ever before should we as a country be worried about government surveillance. The government claims it is for our protection and sure they’re are some benefits. Terrorist attacks stopped, crime prevention, and leads to murders, rapes, and drug trafficking. But, where is the line drawn, how democratic is it really, and whose best interest is really in mind? Should stipulations be set? This topic is a hot discussion in newsrooms, classrooms and political institutions across the nation.

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary

Every day, the balance between civil liberties and national security is threatened. Civil liberty is the freedom of a citizen to exercise usual rights without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government. For example, freedom of speech or assembly being stopped because the government disagrees. We have freedom of speech and other liberties guaranteed by the laws of country like the Bill of Rights here in the United States. But what happens when national security or law enforcement over steps boundaries to keep us secure and violates the rights of citizens. An article called Police and National Security: Local Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism After 9/11, examines three national security law challenges, namely protecting national

The debate about security and liberty has been a very tricky subject for a long time. The government should not be able to spy on us to the extent they are now even if it is for our safety. There are many ways the government is able to spy on the citizens. These include” “body scanners and shoe searches at airports, video surveillance cameras on many buildings, streets, and more intrusive questions at border crossings.” But is this all too much? Many people say yes. The government should not be able to invade our privacy especially when they are not gaining much of anything.

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