Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...
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.
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently.
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.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
...t civil liberties. The Executive Order 9066 in 1942 and the passing of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 both prompted claims of civil liberties violations. Overall, when the country is invaded, National Security trumps civil liberties.
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
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.
Is the patriot act necessary if it protects but threatens our civil liberates? The patriot act threatens civil liberates. The U.S. is spying without the people’s consent. The patriot act will prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. The patriot act can be used to catch wanted criminals. The patriot act protects the people from danger but jeopardizes their civil rights.
The United States of America has debated the topic of whether the rights of the majority should outweigh the rights of the minority from the time before the nation was formed. The idea of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness was placed in the Declaration of Independence because these ideals were what the colonies based their decision to part from Great Britain on. This idealism carried on into the creation of the Constitution and many of the laws that followed. This is evident throughout the United States’ history with specific events such as the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, Brown v. Board of Education decision, and the Japanese-American Relocation during World War II. In more current events, the Patriot Act must be considered.
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.
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
As America entered the war these “four freedoms” which consisted of the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. These fou...
For centuries, civilizations have struggled on deciding what is morality acceptable speech and trying to place restrictions on what is considered inappropriate material. The U.S. is no exception in facing this type of dilemma. In the book, Civil Rights and Liberties in the 21st Century, author John C. Domino details several issues concerning the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression. Domino’s first point is related to subversive political speech, which is in reference to the clear and present danger doctrine. The doctrine came about from a Supreme Court ruling, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), that established a test to permit governmental restrictions on political expression (Domino 30-31). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the test of four conditions that must be met in order to restrict an individual’s freedom of speech; they are intent of the person, the gravity of evil, proximity of danger, and the circumstances surrounding the words (33). Therefore, there is ...
In America, something we hold dear to us is our freedoms, rights, and liberties. Thanks to the Bill of Rights, we are all familiar with many of our rights; such as the right to bear arms, freedom of press, religion, and speech, as well as assembly. With twenty-seven amendments in the Bill of Rights, we would like to believe that we are well protected, and so are the rights listed in it. However, that isn't the case; well, not exactly. In multiple instances, the government has compromised our liberties in effort to “protect” us, the people.