Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good. The 9/11 attack changed America in ways that made limits on our freedom and privacy seem better than the alternative. On September 11, 2001, “...our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist attacks,” President George W. Bush stated in a public address shortly after the attacks. He also stated, “Today, our nation saw evil – the very worst of human nature – and we responded with the very best of America,” to calm fears ... ... middle of paper ... ...y For Security.” Business Insider. 8 Jul. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. Liptak, Adam. “Civil Liberties Today.” The New York Times, 2011. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. Lopach, James J. and Luckowski, Jean A. “National Security and Civil Liberty: Striking the Balance.” Heldref Publications, 2007. n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. Riley, Michael. “NSA Said to Exploit Heartbleed Bug for Intelligence for Years.” Bloomberg, 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. Risen, Tom. "The NSA's Violation Of Privacy." U.S. News Digital Weekly 5.37 (2013): 7. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. Slavick, Louise Chipley. "...In A Japanese-American Internment Camp." Calliope 23.7 (2013): 34. MasterFILE Premier. n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. Wootton, Julie. "Symposium Speaker: National Security, Civil Liberties a Balancing Act." Times-News, The (Twin Falls, ID) 21 June 2013: Newspaper Source Plus. n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
Before the events of 9/11 the US had been attacked before and we were aware of possible threats. However, these threats, specifically those of Al-Qaeda were not taken seriously by American foreign policy makers or regular Americans alike, so on September 11, 2001 Americans were truly shocked by the scale of devastation and loss of life that occurred. The effect these attacks had on America was incredible. In the years that followed Americans became fearful and discriminatory of religious groups; the government created the Department of Homeland Security and enacted stricter search and seizure laws, and America’s foreign policy became defined by unilateral decision making and preemptive war.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
9/11 was one of the most devastating events in American History. Four hijacked passenger airplanes killed almost three thousand people. 9/11 changed millions of lives forever. American Citizens didn’t feel safe. This attack was a wake-up call to American security. 9/11 forced the country to acknowledge its shortcomings and fix them, before any more harm could come upon the United States of America. 9/11, as all acts of terror do, promoted the growth of technology, in this case, security in the United States. 9/11 also brought about feelings of hatred to the country. The United States soon became known as one of the most intolerable nations on this planet. Lastly, 9/11 butchered the economy and forced it down a long road to recovery.
On September 11, 2001 New York came upon a terrorist attack. The terrorist hijacked four airplanes the morning of the attack. The attack was part of the Al-Qaeda Islamist group, led by Osama Bin Laden. Two planes collided into the World Trade Center; one hit the Pentagon, and the other one crashed in Pennsylvania never reaching its destination. The cause of 9/11 is that Islam saw the United States as a heinous country with different and awful morals so they decided to attack. The consequences were the tensions between Americans and Muslims rose. Numerous hate crimes were committed and there was a massive economic downfall. We could have avoided this incident if the airport security would have been more strict, then the attack would have a less chance of happening (Bantista). “Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts. Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward. And freedom will be defended.” –President Bush directly after the 9/11 attacks (Tsimelkas). The government issued extreme changes in the military system and the surveillance ...
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
America is one word that brings the hope of freedom to many people around the world. Since the United States’ humble beginnings freedom has remained at the core of its ideologies and philosophies. People of all races, nations, and tongues have found refuge in America. The National Anthem proclaims, “…land of the free, and home of the brave” (Key, 1814). But has America been consistently a land of the free? Unfortunately freedom has not always reigned. There is a constant struggle to overcome fear and prejudice in order to provide a true land of freedom. In times of heightened tension, the masses of common people seek to find a scapegoat. Often, this scapegoat is a minority with ties to current negative events. As fear uncontrollably grows, it can cause people to allow and commit unspeakable atrocities.
Senator Feingold responded that “we will lose that war [on Terrorism] without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” It is now 2017, but Senator Feingold’s arguments from September and October of 2001 continue to pointedly remind the American people of the negative effects the Patriot Act had on American life and will continue to have moving forward. The heart of Feingold’s stance against the Patriot Act was the counter-productivity of it. The, “government of the people, for the people and by the people,” (Lincoln Online) would essentially trade liberties for security. Liberties the Founding Fathers deemed too innate to individuals to list. What purpose will “security” serve if there are no liberties left to defend? If the
One of the longest lasting debates in the United States is the struggle to balance freedom and safety. Throughout history there have been instances were freedoms have been suspended- whether for the better or worse- because the United States was in a time of crisis. The Quasi War against the French, the Civil War, and the First World War were events where presidents found themselves under fire because of their controversial suspension of certain constitutional rights. Should certain freedoms be curtailed in times of crisis? This debate has always been so controversial because there has never been a majority one way or another. There have always been people for suspending freedoms to preserve safety and at the same time there have always been people that have believed that freedom is ultimately more important than safety.
September 11th 2001 was not only the day when the delicate facade of American security was shattered, but it was also the events of this day that led to the violation of the rights of millions of American citizens. After relentless reprehension by the American masses on the approach that was taken after the 9/11 attacks ,the Bush administration enacted the Patriot Act on October 26th, 2001, a mere 56 days after this tragic event.The Patriot Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies so that they could hopefully avert future terrorist attacks. Under the Patriot Act The NSA (National Security Agency) could entrench upon the privacy of the citizens of the U.S. without public knowledge, consent or, probable cause. The particular incident which had the general public up at arms was when the NSA illicit surveillance came to public knowledge.
In the years prior to the events of September 11, 2001 ("9/11"), very few voices of support, whether corporate or individual, existed for new technologies that could be considered intrusive. After the series of terrorist attacks in 2001, many Americans began to believe that these new intrusive technologies were a "necessary evil" in the prevention of future attacks by terrorist groups. While the events following 9/11 may have changed the attitude of the American public regarding national security, there is little indication it has changed their feelings about more personal aspects of privacy (Townsend & Bennet, 2003).
What is the price of freedom that was paid, and is being paid? Freedom was paid with anguish, pain, time, and lives. We, the inhabitants of America, are fortunate to see this land where we have unalienable human rights that are just basic and essential statutes. There is always a cost for something; furthermore there is a price on our freedom. We pay taxes, follow the land and society¡¯s regulations, vote, and so on. The topic of importance and eminence is how, why, and what paid for our freedom.
David Grayson once said that "Commandment Number One of any truly civilized society is this: Let people be different". Difference, or individuality, however, may not be possible under a dictatorial government. Aldous Huxley's satirical novel Brave New World shows that a government-controlled society often places restraints upon its citizens, which results in a loss of social and mental freedom. These methods of limiting human behavior are carried out by the conditioning of the citizens, the categorical division of society, and the censorship of art and religion.
Despite this many historians believed the preventive measures were necessary in order to keep the United States safe from any further attacks. For example Jim Livingston stated, “When you go to the airport, when you go anywhere, you know security is much tighter. It’s a problem. It’s a hassle. But it’s something I think we have to go through now” ( Historians Discuss What’s Changed 2011), and Allen R. Millett agreed that the extra security measures would give the United States a way to become stronger in both defense and offense, “The United States remains a target-of-choice, but it is a more alert, more dangerous target” (Reflections on 9/11 2011). Although most historians tend to agree with the priority security has in the U.S., some still disagree with the new policies. For instance, Louis Lipinski believes that security and privacy should be of equal priority and 9/11 seemed to destroy the balance the country had, “There are a lot of things and civil liberties that were taken away from us, and I don’t think they’ll ever come back. I think some of them were necessary but some of them were not. And I think that there’s – I don’t think there’s a healthy balance.”( Historians Discuss What’s Changed 2011). Despite the disagreement, historian Lillian McDonald is neutral and sees the United States as having minimal changes post 9/11, “I don’t think it changed