The Fair Restriction of Civil Liberties

With the advent of a new age of Terrorism sweeping the world since the 9/11 attacks on America, much debate has followed as to whether the prevention of terrorist attacks should take prevalence over basic civil liberties enjoyed by any civilian of a liberal democracy. If we take the definition of civil liberties to be “Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference” , it is very hard to envisage a society in which both can exist.

The main argument for placing greater emphasis on the prevention of terrorism rather than on the protection of civil liberties is of course the protection of many lives which the prevention of a major attack would bring. After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, President Bush allowed for the first time for the NSA to hack into the phones of any US resident in the process of collecting foreign intelligence on terrorism. This was a major step, as it infringes on residents fourth amendment rights to privacy, so is a clear case of putting the prevention of terrorism before civil liberties. Professor J. C. Eastman concluded in his analysis of the Congress and Department Of Justice reports, that under the Constitution and indeed approved by both historical and Supreme Court precedent, "the President clearly has the authority to conduct surveillance of enemy communications in times of war and of the communications to and from those he reasonably believes are affiliated with our enemies. Moreover, it should go without saying that such activities are a fundamental incident of war.” Eastman is a prominent law professor and politician, and so his knowledge and access to information on this subject is clearl...

... middle of paper ...

... of the government agenda, thus encroaching; with valid reason, on the rights of those suspected of terrorist activity. Should potential terrorists be allowed to retain their civil liberties, then there is a far greater risk of re-offending on their behalf as well as a far greater chance of danger being posed to the country. I believe that to further my viewpoint, as well as educating others on the matter, I should look for a wider range of opinions from people with a greater knowledge and far more experience concerning such matters; such as former Defence or Home Secretaries. I believe that these individuals will have firsthand experience at dealing with such rambunctious circumstances, and will certainly be able to further my reasoning and beliefs concerning the ‘fair’ restriction of civil liberties when the protection of the many is of the absolute imperative.