The American Constitution gives U.S. citizens basic civil liberties that provide protection from the federal government through the Bill of Rights and the Amendments added throughout American history. However, the national government has repeatedly taken away these significant liberties during a war, and in this era the government’s war on terrorism stirs up controversy all over the globe after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Supporters of the government’s detainment of non-citizens and the NSA’s surveillance of data Internet Service Providers--for example, claim that being secure and safe takes priority over established values. In the anthology Rereading America, Gary Colombo’s The Myth of Freedom;
To be honest I wouldn’t give up my freedom for increased security from terrorism. Benjamin Franklin stated, “They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” I couldn’t have said it any better. We have been fighting for our rights for a very long time. Many people have died to ensure that people have liberties.
While both freedom and safety are crucial values, the desire for safety often takes a larger
It is impossible to discuss civil liberties and security without talking about 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed almost immediately after 9/11, hugely expanding intelligence agencies ability to investigate potential terrorism. However, critics of the law say that it infringed on the civil liberties of the innocent and did not guarantee proper oversight of law enforcement agencies in their execution and use of these newfound powers. I agree that as war and violence evolve, so must our methods of preventing them. In this digital age preventing such violence means monitoring information channels and being able to respond to leads rapidly and subtly.
Safety vs. Freedom Open Argument Final Draft. Freedom has been a central idea established in America since the United States gained its independence. Many citizens of America and other countries support freedom, as most of the world rules through democracy. Although freedom is cherished, safety is valued more than freedom due to the immoderate actions that freedom has caused, specifically in historical aspects and those related to women respectability. History proves that some freedoms lead to devastating outcomes and great impacts on people’s safety.
In this small country a terrorist attack may happen at any time and in any place. Therefore, when entering a shopping mall, hospital, or school, the security guard asks to search the contents of your bag. We have never thought that it was an encroachment on our freedom or invasion of privacy because in these circumstances it was necessary for our protection. Obviously, a government has to protect the lives of its citizens. Nowadays, many people in the United States spend too much time discussing the balance between security and liberty.
This goes to show that the same government that gives us safety is also the same government that sets laws that limit our freedoms and is to punish us if we do wrong. It is also the same government that monitors us for our safety and the safety of others. To submit to a government that can incarcerate us, monitor us and do many other things the government does, can be viewed as giving up our liberty, but at the same time, everyone in America does this to be
The supporters of the NSA surveillance program provide reasons that are blatantly unconstitutional, excusing the program as a small interference for the greater good of the citizen; however, the idea of relinquishing constitutional rights for the sake of national security is in itself a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The motivation for creation of the Fourth Amendment was the use of the ‘excuse’ of providing national security by suppressing and harassing citizens. The Constitution is an unconditional document; therefore, the NSA surveillance program is not justifiable through ambiguousness. Regarding the NSA surveillance program, there is no defined balance between security and liberty. Liberty is mutually exclusive from government interference in the context of security.
Balancing the desire for domestic security against the protection of civil liberties can be a composite process. The United States has experienced several historical periods in which countermeasures were implemented to thwart perceived threat to domestic security. The attacks of 11 September 2001 formed a new paradigm for domestic security in the United States. The struggle against terrorism, particularly catastrophic terrorism, became the government’s most vital priority. In the wake of these attacks, the Department of Homeland Security was established, with wider powers of enforcement, set forth in new legislation such as the Patriot Act.
There is a grey area of exactly how far people wish for this protection to be stretched, one that doesn’t have a true right answer. One example of this situation is the size and funding of the military. After the war on terror began, politicians began lobbying to increase the size of the military in order to gain a stronger upper hand in the Middle East. Many people were incredibly in support of this idea-- they thought that, in order to succeed, they needed to be able to win those battles. However, certain politicians believed that this wasn’t America’s place to interfere and that the army should be smaller, and with it pulling out of the Middle East.
Even though the United States isn 't the safest country, it is fairly close to the safest. Our laws give us the protection we need. Food companies must follow certain protocols, buildings follow a code to stay safe, and just the plain baby guards help keep us safe.
I understand that freedom is very important to humans because freedom give us the opportunity to do whatever we choose, but when it comes down to safety or freedom, safety is most important. Many people choose freedom over safety everyday and end up placing themselves in a position to end up in a dangerous situation. Many people have been through serious situations just because they felt like their freedom was more important than their safety, and I bet if they had another chance to think about the situation they would have went back and choose their safety over freedom. Safety is something you wish for not only yourself, but your family, friends, etc. There are many nefarious people in this world that do not care about others.
Two Concepts of Liberty Summary of the essay: In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty.
Public safety is a growing concern because of the dangers that currently pose to individuals as well as society. At every arena of public life, it is important to implement measures to ensure public security so that health and normal life is always maintained. Some threats are really severe, and after numerous mass shootings, the concern on public safety is now more than ever. Concentrating more on public order than individual rights would decrease, the crime rate, fear of crime, and terrorism in the United States. Greater public order lowers crime but limits individual rights; laws concentrating on individual rights tend to create public disorder and high fear of crime.
In 1787, our founding father’s agreed to write a list of principals for keeping people free. Freedom must be limited. People can not just say they are free. You can not just kill or violate just for freedom. There should be respect for people’s wants and needs.
