National Security vs. Civil Liberties: Balancing Rights and Safety - Essay Sample

Introduction

National security plus civil liberties are always in tension with one another, with some liberties lessening and others increasing security. However, defining these liberties is imperative to define whether those liberties should be upheld at the expense of security and vice versa. This is a difficult line to draw since liberties can be treated more than security since freedom is more important than safety, or treat security more than liberty since security is more important than freedom. The two extreme approaches are important since security and freedom are essential for human survival. However, striking a balance between the two is important. When attempting to reconcile the two aspects, legal principles such as the right to privacy as well as unwarranted seizures apply. Therefore, when adopting policies to enhance national security by combating cybercrime and terrorism, they do so within the provisions of legal principles of the state. FISA and USA Patriotic Act are the major legislations adopted to enhance national security, but they are largely associated with abuse of human rights and liberties. The essay evaluates how security and liberties interact while drawing a balance between the two in light of recent security hacks in the country.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Provisions under FISA and the USA Patriotic Act and Privacy

FISA was instituted as a compromise between the executive and the legislature, with the aim of minimizing abuse of privacy by intelligence agencies (Constitutional Rights Agency). It attempted to support the prohibition of irrational searches subjected to citizens. However, the act provides a basis for authorizing electronic surveillance even with no court order through the certification from the Attorney General. However, the provision is challenged by the Fourth Amendment, providing that it is unlawful to put surveillance on Americans. Also, FISA provides a restriction on the usage of any information gathered through surveillance from a U.S. citizen (Constitutional Rights Agency). However, the information can be used by federal officers for lawful purposes. When such information is used by the state, the affected person and the court are informed before the trial intending to disclose the information. The USA Patriotic Act provides for permission for government surveillance through obtaining a search warrant to investigate criminal activities. Wiretaps and searches are authorized provided that there is a probable cause to do so.

Under the Patriotic Act, surveillance permission is granted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation on a U.S. citizen believed to participate in activities threatening national security. Such may include searching and seizing personal records and property. The act restricts any person with the knowledge of the search from disclosing the information to the affected person. Searches are extended to emails and browsing history through the cooperation of internet service providers. When obtaining a search warrant and the officers present a reasonable probable cause, the investigators can withhold the information from the person for some time to conduct the investigation secretly. It is argued that secrecy in investigations prevents obstruction which can destroy evidence and consequently jeopardizing the integrity if an active investigation.

Effects of America’s Patriotic Act on Civil Rights

After the 9/11 attack, the USA adopted the patriotic act which strengthened surveillance measures by the government on its population. However, the act has raised concerns on privacy intrusion since its adoption. More cases of privacy intrusion have been recorded as reported by the Department of Justice in its 2003 report, providing that many surveillance cases had no connection to terrorism as provided by the act. The government has excess authority to intrude people’s privacy without their consent. However, the government, through the Department of Justice defends the act stating that surveillance tools are used to control terrorist activities to prevent destruction on U.S. soil. As a result, the tension between the act and civil liberties is accelerating, and if a balance is not achieved, it might lead to judicial review.

Individual concerns have been raised to express their worry on the surveillance subjected to the public by their government. The DOJ and FBI arm themselves with patriot act to control global terrorism. Since its adoption, the agencies have reported success in detaining terrorist suspects over different periods of time. However, the agencies release the number of detainees in the U.S., their nationality, and legal charge, but not their names or any information about their detention. In response to these groups, advocacy groups have gone to courts to file complaints against such arrests to ensure that their detention is made public and that they are granted permission for legal representation (Lewin 2012). The suspects’ legal rights are violated since they are denied charges for more than thirty days as required by the law. Despite the public outcry, the agencies do not release any information on their detainees. To support their activities, the agencies explain that the act allows them to improve their intelligence plus law enforcement activities to identify and thwart terrorist attacks (Robert 2013, p. 232).

Importance of Security

Understanding the importance of security is significant in knowing its cost and how it enhances a better life. When the cost of security is higher than its benefits, then, it cannot be justified. Let us take an example of the 9/11 attack in the U.S. The effects of the attack were long and short-term. People lost their jobs, relocated from New York, and destruction of assets. The economy slowed down with the insurance, airlines, tourism, and transport sector feeling the heat (Robert 2002). The long-term costs included increased operational costs and premiums, the institution of military forces, and rejection for globalization. From this point of view, it is easy to understand and appreciate the need for improved security, since there is something worth protecting. From the 9/11 attack, the government increased its expenditure towards national security and instituted acts to support and protect its surveillance measures (Fritz 2018, p. 72).

From this incident, we find the cost of terrorism to be loss of lives, destruction of property, transportation insecurity, and loss of jobs. It is certain that terrorism has adverse on the lives of the people, their economy, and makes them live in uncertainty for their future. It destroyed the country’s pride by destroying its symbol for economic and military strength, that is, the World Trade Center as well as the Pentagon. The symbol for government strength was almost attacked in 1993 when a plane almost crashed into the Whitehouse (Fritz 2018, p. 73). As much as lives and economy are important, protecting the nation’s pride is equally important. Even if most Americans were unaffected, the incidences left the country sense of safety porous. The country became vulnerable at all levels. The culture began to fail; relationship with other countries became tainted, and Americans could not trust foreigners again.

Counterterrorism efforts have been put in place through the patriot act. From the cost of security, we can view the cost of counterterrorism efforts as discussed above through the Patriot and FISA Acts. The costs are significantly high since personal privacy if a major concern in the U.S. interference with civil liberties is a crime punishable by law. From the conflict, there are potential costs and consequences of the costs define the type of character America has adopted in controlling terrorism. The Patriot Act is seen as a means of restricting people’s liberties. However, the most important question is the destructive elements of the acts are justified to stop the said terrorism activities.

Balancing Liberty and Security

The conflict between the two important aspects of human life needs to end by establishing a balance between them. For example, if infringing on some liberties is less costly than the insecurity consequences associated with it, then, it is worth and justifiable. On the contrary, infringing liberties for a less gain in security measures could not be worth a dime. Different arguments can be put across from this assertion given the weights of their analysis. Therefore, it is important for the country to weight the value of security measures and calculate their outcomes before implementing them (Mark 2017, p. 131).

The laws should define the degree of their implementation since there is protection guaranteed in the rights to privacy for all citizens (Robert 2013, p. 188). Many laws are established and given special privileges when conducting criminal investigations. These special privileges go against human rights for privacy. As a result, response to ongoing cyber crimes may be successful, but the government would lose trust in its citizens due to continuous violation of their privacy. Thus, there is a need to reconcile this tension to avoid giving justification for misconduct during criminal investigations. In the process, the government should consider implementing technological measures that will fight against cyber crimes, rather than the continuous use of existing policies that do not respect people’s liberties. Cyber insecurity is larger in scope compared to the time the policies were implemented. As a result, technology is the main solution to fight against cyber vulnerabilities experienced today.

When internet experts are used to counterattacking cyber hackers, their endeavour to reduce cybercrimes will be more productive than the use of law enforcers who may even lack knowledge on how cybercrimes works (Ekaterina 2017, p. 195). The government should swallow their pride and consider the fact that surveillance, which curtails people’s right to their privacy, is not an effective method of tackling cyber terrorism in the world today. Approaches such as encryption, automation, as well as anonymous tagging are security measures which can be adopted without intruding someone’s privacy. Although a better approach can be developed to ensure that the security measures provided here are legal, the approach is the best there is to curb cybercrimes and law that infringes against individual privacy in the name of protecting the country.

Examining tensions related to policies and their implications is the only way to find solutions to cybercrime. Internet engineers will always have new ways to cover their tracts; ways in which the government’s policies of surveillance cannot fathom (Ekaterina 2017, p. 202). As such, policies that ensure that protection of human liberties is not curtailed should be established since freedom and security cannot be compromised. Therefore, during the design of the policies, it is significant to include how the privacy of an individual will be protected since the law treats a person like a suspect even when they are not one.

The government ought to consider making judgments after a cautious examination of the impacts, both the advantages and the disadvantages. Relying on institutions has proven to be inadequate since evidence and data are not used; instead, they use assumptions on what would work. With the current levels of the internet, it is possible for a terrorist to be always ahead of an investigation since they have tapped into the government surveillance systems (Ekaterina 2017, p. 206). Therefore, before considering surveillance, it is important to consider the risk of violating people...