The Pros And Cons Of Human Security

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,

Leonard Beaton similarly argued for the need to expand conceptions of security outward from the limits of parochial national security to include a range of systemic considerations. Likewise, Stanley Hoffman argued for the need to begin ‘turning national security into an aspect of world order policy’. Hedley Bull argued against excessive self-interest in approaches to national security, and for a broader view in which common interest and linkage among securities receive greater attention. More generally, Krause and Nye observed that ‘neither economists nor political scientists have paid enough attention to the complexity of the concept of security, including its instrumental role in the enhancement of different values’. The Brandt Commission called for a new concept of security that would transcend the narrow notions of military defence and look more towards the logic of a broader interdependence. The common theme underlying these voices was that a notion of security bound to the level of individual states and military issues is inherently inadequate.

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

After the terrorist attack September 11, 2001, the United States government increased their investments in security. Many innocent lives were lost because of that incident, which worried the United States of America about self-defense or Homeland Security. Homeland Security was signed to become a law by the President George W. Bush in November 2002. Their main priority was to secure the country from the threats such as international terrorism. The Department of Homeland security had to focus on five goals such as prevent terrorism, enhance security, secure the borders, enforce immigration laws, safeguard, and cyberspace. In order to achieve these goals a lot of work was needed.

Human rights can be summarized as the activities and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to enjoy and only by virtue of their humanity. These conditions are generally guaranteed in the constitution of the land. They are widely felt in the area as they are divided and not limited to political, social economic and cultural rights. Some of the main principles of human rights include the fact that they are inherent, inalienable and indivisible as well. In this relation, human rights can never be taken away from an individual whereby the enjoyment of one right should not infringe the enjoyment of other. They must all be respected and maintained.

Security, however you may think of it the measures we take for it can never enough. It's like insurance you have it not because you want something to happen but because you know that things do happen. That is the United States Border Patrol and Customs they are our first line of defense to the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, for that they have the illegal immigration policy and the pros and cons (www.kyma.com/news/securing-america/646148044.).

Security can be a tool to rationalize, legitimize, marginalize violence (keeping minority groups in their place) which could in turn reinforce systemic inequalities present in society by turning a blind eye to context. This dichotomy serves as a platform for other invalidation ideologies that works on the continuum of fear that can divide into categories of “us” and “them”, which are then used to send us messages about who is a threat, and leads to constructions of what individuals who are not able to stand up for themselves. The death of Ashley Smith illustrates how the range of oppressive structures were responsible for the persistent and severe denials of her fundamental rights. In this context, we can see that the state has both the means to violate and protect human rights.

 This Journal make us think about how the CIA and FBI are profiling people and that it needs to change. The claims fulfill the article's purpose because they talk about different events that shows why this needs to change. However the amount of evidence is very scarce .Nevertheless , it doesn't take away from the audience's captivity due to the fact it talks about event that everyone could relate to.

In most of the cases opposing the concept of human rights to national security is erroneous and unreasonable construction because the national security is the concept which precludes the physical and mental security of all members of the society, and therefore includes and predetermines the possibility of exercising human rights and freedoms. Without security the well-being is impossible.

Security can be defined as the “freedom from danger, risk, etc. with the absence of threats to assimilated principles” or a “low chance of damage to assimilated principles.” However, the word security originates from the Latin Securus, which means “carefree”. Notice that the very definition of the word clues to the term “freedom”. The aforementioned definition of security is very general. It does not stipulate the individual whose security is at issue or the types of values pliable to being secured. The security of people (“human security”) is understood to extend beyond national security, also comprising of economic welfare, the health of the environment, cultural identity, and political rights. Security began to take on a diverse set of restrictions with the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. We would see a drastic change after September 11, 2011.

are critics of the concept of human security which claim that if all the components of well-being are

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to

Human rights is defined as the rights as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution and regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons. Another definition for

Security is a central concern in the study of international relations (IR). Yet despite being the focus of considerable scrutiny, few agreed conceptions of security exist (Buzan, 1991; Huysmans, 2006; Terriff et al., 1991; McSweeney, 1999; Morgan, 1992; Croft 2012; Smith 2000). Buzan even goes as far to posit that the very conception of security is “essentially contested” and thus poses an unsolvable debate (Buzan, People, states and fear; Little, ideology and change, p35). These disagreements have created rifts in the security community over what can be threatened and indeed what can even be considered a threat. Part of the complexity to the subject is derived from the numerous opposing and often contradicting theoretical perspectives within international relations itself, of which security is a sub-field (Terrif et al. 1991 – Security studies today). This paper thereby seeks to trace the various theoretical strands of security studies with the hope of elucidating how and why Islam, and Muslims immigrants have been increasingly portrayed as a threat and ‘Otherised’ in Britain.