Should The United States Conceptualize 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,

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.

The author, Mr. Paul Kennedy reports that both the actions needed to protect human beings, as well as report environmental issues, and world wide record keeping efforts have soared both in requests for services and the needed manpower to deliver these services. Continuing, the world is crying out for the kinds of services that could protect all humans. Ideally, an international police force that could serve and protect people in all corners of the world- would be a strong deterrent toward these acts of terrorism that we see each night on the world news scene (Human Rights).

Self-protection has always been a staunch priority for any civilization, society, or for even an individual. It has been said that the U.S was founded on certain God-given rights and that those rights may not be infringed upon by governments. Furthermore, to ensure those rights remain protected, certain assurances were written into the U.S. Constitution’s Bill Of Rights. According to the Lonang Library, “It is [the peoples] Right, it is their duty, to throw off...[a] Government [i.e. tyrannical one], and to provide new Guards for their future security” (Pratt 2014). This quotation represents the mentality of, and often the ability of, a self-governing and free society. With this ability, however, comes necessary responsibilities such as

“The proper way to balance security and liberty is not to balance them at all; it is to insist on policies that maximize both to the extent practicable” (The Heritage Foundation). Often we speak of the proper balance, but there she be none between the two. They are both reinforcing and the approaches to protect our nation should not diminish the people’s liberty. Protecting individual rights does not necessarily involve the nation’s

In this part of the essay we shall discuss the critic’s and advocates side of human security.. For opponents of human security, the idea is just too broad to be logically used as a tool of policymaking. According to one opponent of this issue, Roland Paris, existing definitions of human security tend to be extraordinarily expansive and vague, encompassing everything from physical security to psychological well-being, which provides policymakers with little guidance in the prioritization of competing policy goals and academics little sense of what, exactly, is to be studied (Paris 2001:

This research paper examined the issue pertaining to the question of National Defense versus American’s civil rights. In this paper I examined the conflict that often occurs between citizens’ rights and national security in the United States (US). I realized through my courses in homeland security, there is often tension between citizens’ rights and US national security. I discovered that many civil liberties have been violated, as they relate to national security. Even though these liberties have been infringed upon before September 11, 2001, it has become a highly debated topic after the events that took place on that date. I used sources, such as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

As a result of this fear, Schrecker summarized the ideology that, “…national security will (and should) trump individual rights.” However, it is detrimental when the government takes away individual rights in order to protect the nation because they assume that they know what is best for everyone, which is problematic specifically if they promote their own ideologies. Nevertheless, when the government takes away individual’s basic rights, they have taken away the individuality of

Citizens of the United States are allowed “unalienable” rights by the Bill of Rights. This document, created in the late 1700s has served as the core of American liberty. Yet, these rights are being infringed upon in the name of Security. The American government, at times blatantly ignores the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They argue that the security of the country is vital. Any citizen of the United States would have to agree that security of the nation should be a top priority of the government. However, while both liberty and security are fundamental factors in American society, the balance is skewed

National security has become an important part of Americas efforts, in today's world many attacks has happened on sovereign soil. Technology has allowed the prevention of terrorist attacks but this requires the breakage of an individual right, an individual might decline permission but Nation Security

Balancing the need of national security and respecting civil liberties is a difficult endeavor. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees our freedom from unwarranted government intrusion. However, we also have the need to feel secure in our society from threats of criminal acts. We then expect the government to provide both and they should.

Ben Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The main question is, what’s more important, our liberties or our safety? Although security is a major necessity for our country, is it worth losing our human rights? Keeping our liberties is more crucial and has a slightly greater significance than increasing security.

Security is one of the essential needs not only to an individual, but also to society. Everyone wants to feel secure wherever they are regardless of the time. The presence of insecurity causes unnecessary tension which might even lead to economic instability within a country. However, in order for everyone to be secure, there are essential measures that have to be taken which some people argue are extreme and unnecessary. After September 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S. by terrorists, there were numerous changes that were advocated to ensure such an event does not occur again. For instance, Americans were subjected to regular security checks and personal details monitoring. Such measures, to some people, seem extreme as they appear to be violating people’s rights and privileges. However, the security measures that Americans have been subjected to are essential, and people have to bear with them if they want to be secure.

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.

The rise of terrorist organizations post 9/11 has challenged nation-state borders and their sovereignty. The presence of insurgencies and terrorist organizations has begun to affect the legitimacy of governments externally and their internal sovereignty.