Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of 9/11 attack
Freedom of speech and the
Freedom of speech and the
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of 9/11 attack
Since the attacks on 9/11 the terrorism threat has still not subsided. Threats come and go and many people are on high alert, either by judging race, activities, or for protection. The attacks of 9/11 have caused national panic in ways to counter terror threats. Many hurdles have been crossed such as the death of Osama Bin laden and the capture of many potential terrorists. Due to the many forms of terrorism, the plethora of new technology, and the increase in the network infrastructure, some control was put on the internet and the phones of many people, wiretapping by the United States has caused much criticism toward the nation. Wiretapping and the filtering and monitoring the internet help the FBI and the government keep suspects in check without them knowing. The question arises, is wiretapping a form of a violation of civil liberties? The Patriot Act was put into effect after the 9/11 attacks allowing the government to use many means to detect terrorism threats or possible threats to the nation.
The questions stem from the core of civil liberty, what are the liberties that we are granted? “Civil liberties are the personal freedoms of individuals that are protected from government intrusion” (Losco and Baker, Pg. 65). This definition ties in with other definitions of what civil liberties are and what is promised to the people. The definition explains that civil liberties are granted to us and should not be violated. The government, by using various methods of invading privacy and making new laws causes, the granted liberties to become violated such as free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law, and many more. This shift in need for security causes a feeling of suffocation from the limited amounts of liberties that...
... middle of paper ...
...FORMATION AWARENESS (TIA) UPDATE. (2003, February 7). U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved April 17, 2014, from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3625
FOIA. (n.d). Retrieved. FCC. April 17, 2014, from http://www.fcc.gov/foia
“Islam is Peace” Says President. (2001, September 17). The White House. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Safeguarding Privacy in the Fight Against Terrorism. (2004, March). TAPAC. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from http://www.sainc.com/tapac/TAPAC_Executive_Final_5-10-04.pdf
Evans, D, N., Maragh, C., & Porter. J. R. (2014). What Do we Know About NYC’s Stop and Frisk Program? A Spatial and Statistical Analysis. Society For Science And Education, 1(2), 129-144. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ASSRJ/article/view/66
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
Since Mayor Rudolph Giuliani first stepped into office in 1993, new rules and policies were implemented to bring change to the then corrupt and dangerous streets of New York City. Quality of life and zero-tolerance policing took in effect and with these new standards came a drastic drop in crime. Even with statistical reports and research about decreased crime rates, the stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and debate over the issue of racial bias within the judicial system. In the late 1990s, popular, legal, and political concerns were raised across the U.S. about police harassment of minority groups in their everyday encounters with law enforcement. These concerns focused on the extent to which police were stopping people on the highways for “driving while black" (Gelman et al. 2004) Additional concerns were raised about racial bias in pedestrian stops of citizens by police predicated on “zero tolerance" policies to control quality of life crimes and aggressive policing strategies concentrated in minority communities that targeted illegal...
The factor of racial profiling comes into play as federal grant programs award police for rounding up as many people as possible. This very tactic was demonstrated by the CompStat system in New York City and further expounded by Victor M. Rios’s analysis of the themes over-policing and under-policing. These themes focus on how officers, police certain kinds of deviance and crime such as, loitering, or disturbing the peace, while neglecting other instances when their help is needed . Rios also stresses how the accumulation of minor citations like the ones previously mentioned, play a crucial role in pipelining Black and Latino young males deeper into the criminal justice system. Rios implies that in order to decrease the chances with police interaction one must not physically appear in a way that catches the attention of a police or do anything behavior wise that would lead to someone labeling you as deviant . Unfortunately, over-policing has made it difficult even for those who actually do abide by social norms because even then, they have been victims of criminalization . However, since structural incentives like those that mimic CompStat are in place, police simply ignore constitutional rules and are able to get away with racial profiling, and thus interrogate, and search whomever they please. Since these targeted minorities acknowledge the fact that the police are not always present to enforce the law, they in turn learn strategies in order to protect themselves from violence that surrounds them. Young African American Americans and Latino youth thus become socialized in the “code of the street”, as the criminal justice system possesses no value in their
While the stop and frisk program ultimately seems like a great idea and that it will help residents of New York City feel safer while on the streets, there has been much controversy with this program. The issue of racial profiling is largely discussed when talking about NYPD’s stop and frisk program. Besides police officers targeting lower income neighborhoods, more stops are of African Americans or Latinos than of whites. These stops often end up with a higher arrest rate. Of the 685,784 stopped last year, 92% were male and 87% were African American or Latino (Devereaux, 2012).
“From 2005 to mid-2008, approximately eighty percent of total stops made were of Blacks and Latinos, who comprise twenty-five percent and twenty-eight percent of New York City’s total population, respectively. During this same time period, only about ten percent of stops were of Whites, who comprise forty-four percent of the city’s population” (“Restoring a National Consensus”). Ray Kelly, appointed Police Commissioner by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of New York in 2013, has not only accepted stop-and-frisk, a program that allows law enforcers to stop individuals and search them, but has multiplied its use. Kelly argued that New Yorkers of color, who have been unevenly targeted un...
"Security & Surveillance." Center for Democracy & Technology. Center for Democracy & Technology, 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
“We have to make a balance between security and civil liberties.”(Sensenbrenner 2). The patriot act was passed with very little congressional debate. The public was unaware of its passing. Our security is over protective because rights are being broken. Our rights should matter more to the government because the security is overprotective. Is the patriot act too harsh and invading our privacy?
Did you know that Institutions throughout NYC are legally violating Black and Hispanic citizens civil rights? These circumstances are the result of the NYPD’s attempt to protect the greater good of NYC; Stop and Frisk is the policy that attempts to accomplish this matter at hand. Stop and Frisk constantly targets Black and Hispanic citizens, therefore it does not promote a just and equitable society due to it viewing these ethnicities as more likely to commit a crime. The origin of Stop and Frisk traces back to the Supreme Court case of Terry V. Ohio, which took place in 1968. Terry, an experienced plainclothes officer, stopped and frisked three suspicious men; one produced a gun with no permit. This Supreme Court case essentially claimed Stop and Frisk to be constitutional under the Fourth Amendment (PBS Newshour). Stop and Frisk can essentially limits the rights of certain individuals because it gives the NYPD permission to avoid the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The NYPD is given permission to stop and frisk an individual under the circumstances of probable cause: if an article or substance capable of causing serious physical injury or is not ordinarily carried in pubic places by law-biding persons is present and in plain view, or if the stop and frisk is supported by oath of affirmation (FindLaw). Stop and Frisk negatively impacts Black and Hispanic citizens in NYC because it promotes institutional racism.
Racial Profiling or stop and frisking highly occur in the state of New York. The New York City’s Police Department stop and frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, privacy rights, and illegal stops. The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast 84 percent of the stops are black and Latino. People say that stop and frisks are reasonable because they help reduce crime and protect citizens, but stop and frisks do not reduce crime rates and do not keep people safer. There has never been a research that has proven the effectiveness of New York City’s stop and frisk tactic, and the small number of arrests, summonses, and guns recovered demonstrates that the practice is ineffective. Crime Statistics also do not support the claim that New York City is safer because of...
Throughout American history, our civil liberties as American citizens have evolved immensely. For example, the first ten amendments in the U.S. Constitution are referred to as the “The Bill of Rights,” which contains some of the most cherished civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion. These civil liberties however, did not originally apply to state governments or institutions the state established. The Bill of Rights focused solely on what the national government could not do, allowing state governments to do whatever they wanted. For example, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire supported Congregationalist ministers with tax payer dollars for decades. After the Civil War, civil liberties expanded, because three new amendments were added: the Thirteenth, abolishing slavery, the Fourteenth, which redefined civil liberties and rights, and the Fifteenth, which allowed adult, male citizens to vote. The due process clause (contained in the Fourteenth Amendment) became one of the most important civil liberties, because it applied the language of the Fifth Amendment to state governments, proclaiming that they could not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Solove, Daniel J. “5 Myths about Privacy” Washington Post: B3. Jun 16 2013. SIRS. Web. 10
Government Surveillance today has changed from what it used to be. Technology has expanded through the past several decades and the government’s monitoring abilities have also expanded tremendously. Since the September 11, 2001 9/11 terrorist attacks, government surveillance has become more a part of everyday life. Government surveillance is said to help in efforts of capturing terrorists and stopping terrorist attacks before they even happen. But how much of our civil liberties are we giving up in order to maybe help capture some terrorists. The rapidly advancing technology of today and a more globalizing culture has made privacy and civil liberties come more into the forefront of our views. After about nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the government surveillance system put into place to keep the United States safe, is so massive that its effectiveness is becoming questionable.
A major reason the U.S. needs to increase restrictions on the type and amount of data collected on individuals from the internet is due to the fact that the United States government can track communications and browsing histories of private citizens without warrant or cause. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ...
Gonchar, Michael. “What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.