Why Is National Security Important

National security is the ability to protect our borders through homeland security while upholding the rights of nation. Privacy when openly tampered with is distorted. Nobody acts the same knowingly being watched. Information finds another way. There have been studies on lesser issues like workers. There is more productivity when people think they are being watched. The same when our liberties are at stake. What are people to do when it’s done for the wrong reasons? Like when an African American see’s a sign that separates white and color bathrooms. Another would be when the Jews were forced to where a star then live separately in their own projects. The US jokes about our nation being like fraternity. Every new group gets picked on. The Jew’s for being good with money. The Mexicans for being illegal’s and now it’s the Arab’s turn. But Arab’s are all terrorist somehow. We have seen terror before from the Unabomber, the KKK, and columbine shooting. How do we keep up with inflation? The government finds one way to gather information and terrorist adapt. When civil liberties get trampled in the process more anti-American groups rise to the occasion creating more danger inside America and out.

National security can be defined as a country's need to maintain its survival by use of military, political and economic power for diplomacy. Civil liberty are freedoms

Richard Posner published a book Not a Suidice pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency in 2006. In this book, he argued that the U.S. government would batter to adjust balance of civil liberties and national security though he knew it is hard. And U.S. government gave weight to national security excessively in my opinion. I think, however, the U.S. government has to protect civil liberties no matter what happen. Since Posner’s book was published approximately nine years ago, he would conclude protection of American civil liberties is more important at this moment.

expressing that if we are all one in the same then why do people downgrade people of color.

Since the introduction of the USA-Patriot Act after 9-11, and with the current and continuous looming threat of terrorism, America has been on the breach of whether the intelligence community is taking advantages and using these to dilute our civil liberties. The tension between civil liberties and Homeland Security is really complex, throw in immigration policy, criminal law, First Amendment and others and it is a recipe for disaster to Americans. We as Americans cherish our civil liberties and believe that because of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that these liberties are protected from and by the Government and are not going to surrender them lightly or compromise them unless it is absolutely necessary, and if then for only a

Over the course of American history the United States military has been in need of more able bodied men to fight for the security of the nation than it has had. George Washington needed men during the Revolutionary era, George W. Bush needed men after the events on 9-11, and the next president will need men to continue the fight on terrorism. America has been reactive in their efforts to maintain a well-regulated military by only calling upon healthy abled bodied men during time of war. When in fact, America, should have been proactive by keeping a well-trained and well-staffed military on hand at all times. Every able bodied male should serve at least four years in the United States Armed Forces because the United States need protection at any given moment. The security of the United States is more important than ones right to choose to be in the Armed Forces. The rights of the people of the United States will not exist if there is not enough able bodied males to protect those rights. Of course non able bodied males should be excluded from this. A law to force every male to join the Armed Forces would go too far.

Since the events of December 8, 1941 and September 9, 2001, there has been an immense change in the ruling of our national security and personal freedoms. The debate between the two is an intricate affair. Our national security has a direct effect on the lives of every citizen in this New World. America has yet to figure out how to retain both without a monumental problem occurring. National security is protecting against all national crisis, which demands taking away some civil liberties from the people. Having said that, a mass amount of people are not willing to give up those personal freedoms for the betterment of our nation because they feel that the government has taken it too far. National protection of the citizens

The balance between National security and civil liberties has been an issue ever since September 11th 2001. That act of terror was the beginning of the Government changing laws and civil liberties for the protection of the United States against act of terrors. Many people think that the Government is going way too far and others believe that we are doing the right thing to keep us safe. In all honesty I see a huge fluctuation in decisions as the years go by. “In a poll conducted in 2011, shortly before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 40% said that “in order to curb terrorism in this country it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties,” while 54% said it would not. A decade earlier, in the aftermath of 9/11 and

The topic of national security vs. personal privacy, in recent events, has been very controversial regarding which is more appropriate. On one hand, the government can search through personal, private files without any consent from the owner, thus making the information no longer private. The opposing side argues that the government is invading personal privacy of innocent civilians, violating the Fourth Amendment Rights to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Both have valid points, both positive and negative; however, the invasion of personal privacy by the law is only justified in a dire, life or death situation. The government should not have the ability to view private information in an everyday situation because it is a strong violation of the Fourth Amendment, it is too invasive, and it bypasses the limits of personal privacy when necessary. Therefore, the government should not be able to view personal, private information of civilians unless absolutely necessary.

Every social group has made numerous contributions to the progress of humanity and to think that any one group is less human than other is absurd. There are many benefits to protecting diversity. Culture is kept alive, differences in individuals advances respect for individuality. People can be people, themselves. By hiding behind an egocentric bias, people create an illusion that they are placing themselves upon a pedestal, making them think themselves as special and above average, placing others beneath them. Preserving individuality and cultural diversity is an obligation to all who possess their own identity or wish to. By preserving one’s own and attempting to destroy another is unjust. Who is to say that one belief or tradition is above another? “Understanding that race is socially constructed is the first step in addressing those factors and giving everyone a fair chance in life.” (RACE) Because race is merely built by a society’s idea, it should not take part in changing diminish a person’s chances at life, nor should it heighten their chance either. If an African American woman can be a great mechanic, her skills making her more qualified than the white man also applying, then why should the woman miss out on such an opportunity just because she is a minority? The answer is that she shouldn’t. Racial, social, and gender roles are a figment of an old society’s imagination

The government should not be able to do such things as invading personal privacy, collecting electronic data, or monitoring phones and internet activity without cause, unless the government has some proof or evidence that an individual is doing something that potentially affects national security. If there is some proof like associating with a known terrorist, then the government should be able to restrict civil liberties. Currently, the Patriot Act allows the government to secretly obtain information on individuals without a reason to believe they are involved in illegal activities. This is wrong. The government should have proof of something illegal. I believe civil liberties will reinforce national security. Citizens who have their liberty will want to protect the country that gives them that liberty. I do not agree that if an individual does not have anything to hide, they should not mind drug searches, wiretaps, or other types of searches. Even if an individual has not done anything wrong, they should have the right to

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

Finally, security loses its worth if not accompanied by rights. Benjamin Franklin states that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither liberty or safety" Without Liberty, Security is purposeless. The entire purpose of national security is to protect the American way of life and what our nation

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.

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.”