Civil Liberties vs National Security

In U. S. , the visor of objurgates shelters accomplished liberties. People in the joined States, hold polite unspoilts, which be those privileges, immunities and rights held by all Americans and political rights, which atomic number 18 the rights that are restricted to those who are entit guide to participate in elections, as candidates or voters. The distinction is important since not all are effectual to vote though they all should enjoy their freedoms. This may no prolonged be feasible as majority of the civil rights are interpreted to include the political rghts in this age.National p directge can be defined as a countrys need to apply its survival by use of military, political and economic military unit for diplomacy. Civil liberty are freedoms and rights exercised by various(prenominal)s in any country provided by their countrys polity or inter bailiwick laws, for example the right to life, freedom of lyric, freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the righ t to guarantor and liberty and many more. National security issues arose after the sustain world war in the united states of America with initial emphasis on the military.For any country in this day and age, national security encompasses energy security, economic security, environmental security and many more. Security threats execute not only from external states only if also from il statutory drug cartels, multi-national organizations and terrorists groups. The civil liberty concepts are protected under a countrys constitution, bill of rights. Other legal mandate are also adopted by countrys to uphold this civil liberties by giving effect to international laws passed in conventions such as the International Covenant and Political Rights and the European radiation diagram on Human Rights.The protection of civil rights is deemed as the responsibility of a countrys people and presidency. The extent of some civil liberties, such as reproductive rights, property rights and se veral others are subject of delve. The debate of whether or not civil liberties should or can be infringed to ensure national security has been subject to never ending debate. The extent to which civil liberties can be altered and, or suspended with respect to the security of a nations interests calls for a reat deal of care in striking the correct balance.Posner (2001) disputes the ideology of civil libertarians that national security will lead to an erosion of civil liberties. He proposes that the basic mistake is the prioritizing of liberty and is both a mistake slightly history as well as law when it happens to striking the demand balance between civil freedoms and national security. In his view, under law, these civil rights can rarely be altered to suit the time deep down which they exist to uphold the same rights as before.Cole (2002), in personal line of credit states that the nations response to national security threats has time and again infringed civil rights. The imperative Court of the United States in tandem acknowledges that, History abundantly documents the determination of Government, however benevolent and benign its motives -to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. that said, this is not a problem that is unique to the United States, but the constitutional structures, political will and religious structures do not protect the peoples rights.He further points give away that our governments subvert the freedoms that constitute the defense in the well universe of a nation. Glenn Greenwald talks of the misconception of combating terror in the arouse of national security while upholding civil liberties. He emphasis that the centre of this civil rights has been distorted and often misunderstood due to the description of combating terrorist act to preserve national security. The meaning of terrorism has been built on the concept that, if one was not on our side then they were definitely against us.This h as braggy fear within people that infringe on basic valet de chambre rights e. g of residence, movement, expression, fellowship and many more. The misinterpretation of upholding national security ends up marginalizing and curtailing the freedoms of some of the patriotic residents who may be involved directly or indirectly with particular religions and groups seen as potential threats. The F. B. I, has significant legal powers, excellent resources, and a jurisdiction that has overseas coverage.They return in recent age penetrated and prosecuted many organized criminal gangs, uncovered public corruption and successfully caught up with terror attacks. Still the same F. B. I has curtailed the basic freedoms of association, speech e. t. c The bureau while protecting their national security freedoms has infringed the adult male rights by disrupting and neutralizing peaceful protests. It has more so focused its resources on neutralizing and bridle political activity other than inve stigate criminal activities.The force, does not have accountability to the the public while incriminates on the basis of association kinda of relying hard facts and evidence to get hold of the real criminals. The adoption of legislation such as the Anti-terrorism Act (1996), is a good indicator of ult injustices and the unrestricted investigations by the bureau based on political agendas. The Acts tump over criminalization of peaceful activity gave the F. B. I. leverage to involve itself in the religious, ethnic and political grouping involving themselves in peaceful and humanitarian work.Afterwards, it grew to encourage politically motivated investigations. The deportation and exclusion of immigrants on the basis of guilt of association completely discredits the protection of the civil rights. Other legislations such as the rule of the secret evidence against alleged terrorists infringed on their basic freedoms e. g the right to confront ones accusers. For any society, politic al freedom is key, then allowing peaceful ways to express their dissatisfaction which in turn initiates social change.Civil rights have been infringed since the legal regime established under Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower who facilitated the worst abuses in the FBIs history, and eventually led to reforms. The FBI under new and better legislation undertook an intensive campaign with the bugger off of capturing suspected Communists,. The committees that were set up drew up lists and constructed links among organizations. They were confronted with inculpate evidence with no room for self defense and compelling testimonies from individuals who scattered their jobs if they did not agree to testify, and to some extent were locked up.Posner insists that these freedom should be curtailed up to the point where the benefits outweigh the costs of reduced liberty. In all this, legislation ought to be responsible as well as the officials so that they maintain the balance betwe en the civil liberties and national security. History depicts officials generally magnify the dangers to the countrys security which is not entirely true.Officials tasked with the responsibility to estimate the occurrences and magnitude of these dangers failed, thus led to the occurrences e. the civil war of Japan on the U. S that led to the distraction at Pearl Harbor,of Soviet espionage in the 1940s, the September 11 attacks and many more. The Government in times of crisis, will exercise its power to conduct a comprehensive domestic intelligence. The difference between legal dissent and criminal conduct is often forgotten. The work of the church, is to recommend federal agency to make sure that the distinction will always be observed. The unsuccessful bit arises when, you incompatible and outdated ways to deal with issues that threaten your national security.Legislations that deem an individual guilty by association of group, color, race, religion should be put aside to ensure that the fundamental rights of each human being are respected and up held. In the ongoing balancing debate between civil liberties and national security is never ending. However, the constitution has an already balanced point between personal freedoms and government power. Hence the curtailing of individual rights is a personal decision or the governments irresponsibility with the power vested in it by the same people it ought to protect.Anti-terrorism can be used as a measure to the extent of infringing right. Despite the intense war to get rid of terrorism everywhere, the terrorist threat in reality cannot be eliminated. We need to come up with very good responses. However, this should be careful devisened out and executed to avoid sacrificing the fundamental principles that constitute our democratic identity. Otherwise, it is best is to wed our liberal principles, to use the set criminal laws to punish and prosecute those who plan or carry out violent deeds and encourage criti cs of our government into the practice of tolerance and democracy.