In recent years’ homeland security has taken a more political approach. Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, politics have played a large role in the decision making, excluding some checks and balances for immediate action. The role homeland security plays within federalism would be to find ways to secure our national security without infringing on our civil liberties. I believe that federalism and the policies and processes in place today, hold the highest importance of continuing our country’s ability to uphold the moral and ethical grounds of the world. Sacrificing those moral and ethical means could hold more threats than terrorism itself. Actions that are deemed unethical or immoral, could devastate foreign policy, or trust of one’s …show more content…
I believe that the major mistrust came at the hands of the war on Iraq. The major face of the Iraq War was to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s). It had not been seen by the United States public that Iraq had even had any WMD’s at the time, or were producing this type of weaponry. With a trickle-down effect, the building distrust of the federal government led to the American people not trusting local authorities and police. As an enormous issue in today’s society, it could boil down to the continually growing blatant distrust of the federal government. The distrust of local authorities has led to murders of local and state police officers. In a study from the Pew Research Center, as of 2015, “Only 19 percent of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “Just about always” 3 Percent or “most of the time” 16 percent” (Fingerhut, 2015). When people distrust they seem to lose faith, and when people lose faith in their government, people tend to act out and not follow rules or laws. This has been shown most recently, while people protest in the streets against the government, and or local authorities. I believe that many issues in today’s society boil down to the distrust of our federal and local government and authorities. If people …show more content…
(2015, January 16). Federalism, Homeland Security and National Preparedness: A Case Study in the Development of Public Policy. Retrieved from https://www.hsaj.org/articles/163
CNN: Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional. (2007, September 26). Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/patriot.act/
Fingerhut, H. (2015, November 22). Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government. Retrieved from hyyp://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958- 2015/
Heimlich, R. (2009, August 09). Eight Years After 9/11, Fewer See Need to Sacrifice Liberties for Safety. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2009/08/10/eight- years-after-911-fewer-see-need-to-sacrifice-liberties-for-safety/
Hoeflich, M. (2017, May 19). Homeland Security and Legal Ethics I & II. Retrieved from https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.ku.edu/files/docs/recent-developments/2017/hoeflich-I-II-
a spawned complaints,” (Roberts, 2014, p. 355). From what that was saying is that civil defense was more successful while Homeland Security was a failure for the use federalism. For the contrast both Civil Defense and Homeland Security are used for safety to protect people from natural
The United States spends more on its defense than any other country in the world, in a democratic state whose constitution Alexander Hamilton helped to inspire. It’s questionable as to what lengths a democratic system should go to keep its citizens safe as ultimately security cannot be unconditionally guaranteed. Having a debate between liberty and security is by no means a new one, its influence on political thought can be profoundly polarizing, as the extremes of both liberty and security can be witnessed around the world and throughout history. The principles that must be prioritized within a democracy while still affording safety, revolves around the ability of citizens to exercise their political liberties.
Subsequent, to the September 11th,2001 terrorist attacks, the Department of Justice proposed The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) to prevent future terroristic attacks. According to Preserving Life and Liberty article, the PATRIOT ACT has played an imperative part in “a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from plans of terrorist dedicated to destroying America and our way of life.” Further, Rosemary Jenks emphases in her article “A Summary of the Anti-Terrorism Law’s Immigration – Related Provision” that the PATRIOT Act focuses mainly on “reinforcing the arsenal of tools available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and federal prosecutors for identifying and disabling terrorist networks operating both
Abraham Lincoln, a former US president, had stated, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Using the book, 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn, Lincoln’s observation can be proven to be accurate. This is because, in 102 Minutes, a common theme of self-destruction is revealed from the 1993 bombing as well as during 9/11. Self-destruction can be very dangerous when one realizes that when a country, or in this case, a state, diminishes their laws and regulations because, “it is unimportant” and “more cost efficient.”
I believe that there is often a lack of accountability, as well as superiors to believe officers rather than those who may accuse officers of acting. “When Walter Scott fled from the North Charleston police, he was not merely fleeing Michael Thomas Slager, he was attempting to flee incarceration.” (Paragraph 2) While more training and body cameras may decrease the number of violent and deadly situations between police and suspects and they are not the solution to the problem. This flaw in the criminal justice system, Coastes argues, ultimately comes down to how often minors view police as a power, rather than an authority meant to protect. Many believe that our justice system is a fair one, based on the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty that all deserve a fair trial etc.
The USA Patriot Act was signed into law on Oct. 26, 2001, due to the need for cooperation among all levels of security. Police and other department agencies were given powerful authority and encouraged to share information. This is to meet the goal for a safer America in times of turmoil including international affairs. But as the years have passed and as terrorist attacks seem to cease, people have begun to question if there’s too many restrictions on law enforcement were called off.
Over the years following 9/11, facts about the secret surveillance program started to surface. As an investigation started being conducted, it was found that the program was not just listening in on calls and emails from abroad by quite of bit of activity monitoring was taking place within the United States causing a lot of controversy in the fact that people did not like the idea that their private information was being invaded by the NSA on authority of the president. Furthermore, there was a rise in concern for the Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure violations of having individual’s emails taken and used against them without warrants. The Bush Administration worked with Congress immediately following the 9/11 attacks to pass and sign into law the USA Patriot Act that was “an overnight revision of the nation 's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government 's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court” (ACLU,
Critical issues not addressed? While it is not possible to cover every single aspect of the topic in-depth, some critical issues that may not be fully addressed in the material could include the impact of technology on homeland security. The rapid advancement of technology has changed the nature of security threats and the way that security agencies operate. The material may not fully address the implications of these changes for homeland security legal and ethical issues. Impact my future in Homeland Security Homeland Security Legal and Ethical Issues can have a significant impact on the future of homeland security by providing a deeper understanding of the challenges faced in balancing national security with individual rights and civil liberties.
The author of, You decide: Current Debates in Criminal Justice asks, “Is the Patriot Act a Necessary Protection Against Terrorism or a Threat to Our Civil Liberties?” (Waller) Proponents of the Patriot Act have claim that the law is a necessary protection against terrorism. In contrast, opponents of the Patriot Act claim that it is a violation of Americans’ civil liberties. Both sides of the argument have debated valid points for and against the Patriot Act. The, U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is an acronym that stands for, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
Some people may think that the 14th amendment does a poor job of protecting people’s rights. In document five it explains how on September 11, 2001,with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, it has caused video surveillance in the United States to increase. For example the U.S has programs that use facial recognition that help match photographs of criminals faces to the criminal. Another program that we use helps prevent suicide bombers from attacking. Some people may think that prevention of terrible events reoccuring or occurring is a good thing, but using security systems everywhere may be a violation of their rights and privacy.
Civil liberties are rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution that the government cannot interfere with, however, in the name of national security, they do. The government sometimes finds it necessary for Americans to give up some of their basic rights to keep the nation protected, but many people find this unnecessary. A law-abiding citizen’s extremely personal information should not be essential to finding terroristic threats within this society. Under no circumstances should an American citizen’s civil liberties be violated in a time of war or crisis, because those are assured rights that are most valuable to their freedom during national conflicts.
The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing
The personal liberties of Americans is what gives meaning to being an American. These liberties should be respected and upheld to the greatest efforts possible and should not be abridged by no means less than do process as exemplified by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the American Constitution. However, over time, we have learned about legislation that has been enacted by our government with said efforts to protect the nation. Hence, the Espionage and Sedition Acts, the confinement of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, the Red Scare post-WWII, and the Pentagon Papers of 1971 are all examples that depict some of the behaviors performed by the federal government that would appear to infringe on these liberties.
As stated before, there is nothing wrong with taking measures to assure the safety of Americans, but just as has been shown, the current criteria for keeping us “safe” is flawed. What is wrong with trying to fix a flawed system by implementing an old American value that there is absolutely zero tolerance for any government overreach? Judges Marreros solution to that unconstitutional flaw, is by no means abnormal to the American style of freedom, where as it actually traces back to the root guardian constructed in our constitution: the Checks and
In established democracies, the citizens depend on the police. Democracies entitle their people to personal rights, and these people have high expectations that they will never be stripped of them. Currently in the United States and abroad in the European Union, there seems to be a growing mistrust in police and even the governments as a whole. In the United States, there is a far greater risk of being shot and killed by a police officer, rather than a terrorist. In addition, the amount of documented police corruption showcased in the media is disturbing, yet, the organizations rarely suffer any repercussions aside from just a “slap on the