When George W. Bush was proposing to congress why the Department of Homeland Security needed to formally become a government department he explained that, “The President proposes to create a new Department of Homeland Security, the most significant transformation of the U.S. government in over half-century by largely transforming and realigning the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland. The creation of a Department of Homeland Security is one more key step in the President’s national strategy for homeland security” (Bush “The Department” 1). In 2002 the Department of Homeland Security formally became a department of government after congress passed the Homeland Security Act (Homeland Security – Creation of the department of Homeland Security). The Homeland Security Act of 2002 states that, “the primary mission of the Department is to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and to minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur
Many people today may not agree with the government and their decisions at all times, however, Jefferson made it clear that looking out for the safety of citizens should be the number one priority of any group of government officials. “...as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness” (113). Now, in my personal belief, I feel as though it could benefit the United States Government to sometimes take a look at this declaration and take into account the truths that it holds and the words that speak to U.S. citizens. “People shouldn’t be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people” (Moore).
These full body scanners, which Chertoff had a hand in getting into the airports, were “heavily criticized (and little tested)”, and were sold by a company which was a client of Chertoff’s consulting agency (Turley, 3). Another example is Dick Cheney. He was the CEO of Halliburton, a company associated with numerous U.S. war scandals, prior to holding the office of Vice-President. How telling is it that “the company (Halliburton) made $217,199 in campaign contributions in 2004, and in the same year was awarded $8 billion in military contracts” (Newton, 229). According to Turley, hundreds of billions of dollars annually go towards the cost of war, the taxpayers’ money flowing into the arms industry’s pocket, and those agencies and contractors are trying to keep it that way.
But is it enough? In looking at the United States, having a domestic intelligence agencies, similar to MI5 in Great Britain, would not fare well in the US. The law enforcement disposition of the United States is highly decentralized.
The First Amendment of The Constitution is engraved in the minds of the American people for being the guarantor of the Freedom of Speech clause. Nevertheless, the vagueness of said clause has been subjugated to challenges that ask; “Should Freedom of Speech be regulated?” The Supreme Court appeared to be inconsistent for creating answers on a case-by-case basis. However, in the midst of said inconsistency, the Supreme Court’s most compelling standard to determine if speech can be constitutionally restricted is if said speech abridges people from other constitutionally guaranteed rights.
There would be a huge debate about the Second Amendment and opponents will argue about how the Second Amendment also referred to individuals in America and how the amendment protects individual gun ownership. Chairperson of Revolution PAC, Lawrence Hunter, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to bear laws is as primary and as essential to maintaining liberty. The rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty described in the Bill of Rights.” Supporters might argue and state how its original meaning was intended to protect the militia, but opponents believe otherwise. Opponents of more female protection might say that Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime.
It’s not something that should be protected against a nosy onlooker. There is no connection between the lack of a search warrant and the constitutional freedom against involuntary disclosure. The weapon would have been just as unlawful and involuntary if there was a search warrant. The warrant does not advance the idea that the defendant will be covered against disclosing his own crime. Actually, the warrant is used to urge him to disclose it.
The security debate has for too long focused on military threats towards the state and the non traditional threat issues such as environment, trade, transnational crime, human security, etc. have not been seen as potential security threats (Deutsch et al., 1957). One important reason for
Social equality advocates had likewise required the end of escape clauses for national security and outskirt implementation, which the DOJ did not embrace. The record states: This Guidance does not matter to Federal non-law implementation work force, including U.S. military, knowledge, or political faculty, and their exercises. Moreover, this Guidance does not have any significant bearing to ban exercises in the region of the fringe, or to defensive, review, or screening exercises. The DOJ approach, in any case, is far clearer and more grounded than strategies held by numerous states and areas.
The current criminal justice system has implemented countless policies that are unsupported or are determined ineffective by research and evaluation. Research and evaluation play an extremely limited role in policy making. Rather than having policy supported by empirical testing our current system promotes policies that are designed to win the approval of organizations and individuals that can promote polices and accelerate their implementation. When research and evaluation does not provide specific answers or raises more questions, it causes policy makers to dismiss research. Research often provides complex answers to our complex crime issues and this does not allow for policy makers to create quick fix policies for crime issues.
Additionally, defense was focused on by the government after 9-1. Once 9-11 happened the FBI director decided he needed to do something to try to prevent a terrorist attack this major. The director changed their main focus. The new main focus was counterterrorism. With counterterrorism being their main focus the congress funded this area greatly.
Is National Security better than Personal Privacy? People fear their loss of privacy, but the government is trying to protect us. The 4th Amendment states that citizens have the right to protect their privacy and should not be violated without a warrant. The Patriot Act was passed to protect citizens from terrorism. However, privacy is always a good thing to have but when it comes to protecting our country national security is the best way to go.
Another major problem that could clearly lead to violations of the civil liberties of Americans is that most of the provision in the PATRIOT Act are unchecked. They state on their website that “Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute 's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.” The latitude given for allowing wire taps and monitoring phone call is also a sore spot for the act.
Due to the government checks and balance system congress or the president cannot implement anything without it being checked. Once the President signs an act, citizens must abide by it because of the social contract. We gave them the power to make those decisions and agreed to follow whatever they create as long as it does not violate the constitution or civil liberties. This same idea plays a part in the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System the Bush administration