Liberties that the U.S. Cannot Reduce or Give Up in the Face of Modern Terrorism - Term Paper Example

Liberties that the U.S. cannot reduce or give up in the face of modern terrorism 09 March  Liberties that the U.S. cannot reduce or give up in the face of modern terrorism Terrorism is one of the major curses facing by the current societies all over the world. According to Forsberg (2005), “Individuals turn to the use of terror when they are unheard by the government, when their ideology is termed radical, and when they reach a certain level of frustration”1. America like countries have strengthened counter terrorism measures after 9/11 incident. However, many of the counter terrorism measures are causing huge inconvenience to the public. Many people believe that American government looted civil liberties in the name of counter terrorism measures. Growing threats from terrorist groups forced America to strengthen security measures and implement many controversial acts in the country. Even though American citizens are facing less trouble because of these tight measures, people who are visiting America are facing big problems at American airports. For example, recently former Indian president and renowned scientist APJ Abdul Kalam forced to undergo body scanning in the name of security measures. If a country’s president like VVIP is facing such problems in America, one can anticipate the extent of problems facing by ordinary visitors from overseas countries. These incidents would have definitely encouraged Benjamin Franklin to comment that: `Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This paper critically analyses the argument of Benjamin Franklin to know whether there are liberties that the U.S. cannot reduce or give up in the face of modern terrorism Federal policies adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) and related executive orders, regulations, and actions threaten fundamental rights and liberties, including the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution by authorizing the indefinite incarceration of noncitizens based on mere suspicion, and the indefinite incarceration of citizens designated by the President as `enemy combatants without access to counsel or meaningful recourse to the Federal courts2. Many people have the assumption that the patriot act may affect only the foreigners and American citizens may not be affected too much because of that. In reality, the above assumption seems to be an illusion. It should be noted that the president acts based on the feedbacks received from the bureaucracy. Bureaucracy on the other hand can mislead the president with misinterpretations of facts. Moreover, making evidences against somebody for labeling them as traitors is not a difficult task in America. In short, innocent American citizens may also become the victims of patriot act. It should be noted that of electronic surveillance is currently in place as part of fight against terrorism. In the name of electronic surveillance, officials can look in to the private matters of Americans. Americans value their privacy very much; however, they forced to sacrifice it for the implementation of counter terrorism measures. Another controversial clause in the patriot act is “expanding the authority of Federal agents to conduct so-called `sneak and peek or `black bag searches, in which the subject of the search warrant is unaware that his or her property has been searched” 3. It is possible for the officials to conduct emergency searches in American houses and apartments as part of security measures and that also without giving the house owner any prior information. Security related searches in the absence of house owner or search warrants can bring lot of controversies. This clause can be used to take revenge upon enemies. Moreover, White police officials may use it against black communities as part of their racial discrimination efforts. “The Patriot Act provides sweeping power to government agencies to monitor the personal habits of not only those who have been identified as suspected terrorists, but anyone residing in the United States as well as United States citizens residing abroad”4. In other words, even Americans staying abroad would also be under the control of patriot act. Patriot act also “Granting law enforcement and intelligence agencies broad access to personal medical, financial, library, and education records with little if any judicial oversight” 5. In other words, American citizens cannot keep anything away from the law enforcement agencies because of patriot act. Each and every activity as well as the movement of Americans will be watched by law enforcement agencies in the name of security measures. Judiciary has limitations in interfering in such matters because of this act. Even religious prayers and activities would be monitored in America because of Patriot act. America cannot blame China no more for human right violation. American society was believed to be the most liberal society in the world before the implementation of patriot act. However, same thing cannot be said about it after the implementation of this controversial act. Patriot act allows “FBI to conduct surveillance of religious services, internet chat rooms, political demonstrations, and other public meetings of any kind without having any evidence that a crime has been or may be committed”6. Since terrorism has lot of cultural dimensions, religious activities are monitored continuously by the authorities. It is a fact that in many of the churches and prayer halls, religious fundamentalism is being preached. Moreover, political groups often make use of terrorism for gaining political advantages. Social networks are communication channels through which ideas of religious fundamentalism or terrorism are spreading. Amidst all these facts, one thing is true; only few people are doing all these activities. Punishing all the people for the mistakes of some people cannot be justified under any circumstances. A secure State is necessary to protect those who dwell within it, but any argument that human rights must necessarily be subordinated to the security of the State should be regarded with caution. A State may be said to be secure only when all of its constituent elements – its territory, its inhabitants, and its government – are secure. Security of the inhabitants includes the inviolability of their human rights. In a State where human rights are insecure the State itself is insecure7. Security of the state means the security of the citizen. Security of the citizens cannot be ensured by a state if it violates topics related to human rights. Privacy is a human right issue and therefore encroachment into the privacy of the citizens cannot be regarded as a measure necessary to protect them. In other words, security and human rights should travel in parallel directions rather than going in opposite directions. “Counterterrorism is defined in the U.S. Army Field Manual as “Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, pre-empt, and respond to terrorism”8. Matthias Borgers and Elies van Sliedregt (2009) pointed out that “preventive action entails the risk that – in retrospect – people are wrongfully subjected to far-reaching measures”9. Ccounterterrorism measures have nothing to do with civil liberties. It is the duty of the authorities to fight against terrorism without causing too many damages to the interests of the people. It should be noted that counterterrorism measures are affecting all the people whereas the occasional terrorism affects only few people. In other words, counter terrorism measures bring more disadvantages than the disadvantages bring by terrorism. The 2006 UN Resolution with respect to Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy says that human rights should not be violated in the name of counterterrorism activities10. “Terrorists heighten public anxiety by making their attacks appear to be random so that everybody feels at risk. In fact, these attacks are not random and are purposely directed at “soft” targets that institute fewer precautions”11. In other words, terrorists are deliberately creating a feeling among the public that they can attack any targets any time. Thus, they are trying to spread the message that no place in America is secure from terrorist attacks. In reality, terrorists are selecting their targets after careful evaluations. Only after a lengthy study and preparations, they will take decision to attack a particular target. It should be noted that even after implementing several counter terrorism measures, terrorism has not come down at all. To conclude, antiterrorism activities are reducing the liberties of the public immensely. It transforms democratic societies into autocratic societies. Counterterrorism activities are affecting all the people whereas terrorist activities are affecting only few people. Moreover, counterterrorism measures have no effect upon terrorists which is evident from the fact that terrorism continues to grow at all parts of the world. Under these circumstances, Benjamin Franklin’s remarks that, -“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”- seem to be extremely relevant. Instead of causing too many difficulties to the life of the people, government should put more thoughts into counterterrorism activities so that ordinary people continue to enjoy their liberties as they did in the past. Bibliography Bandyopadhyay Subhayu & Sandler Todd. The Interplay between Preemptive and Defensive Counterterrorism Measures: A Two-Stage Game. Center for Global Collective Action Working Paper No. 10-002. [Online] http://www.utdallas.edu/epps/cgca/documents/10-002.pdf [Accessed on 09 March 2012] Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act (Introduced in House). 2003. [Online] http://www.freewebs.com/thepill/HR%203171%20IH.htm [Accessed on 09 March 2012] Echeverria, Gabriela. 2004. Terrorism, counterterrorismAnd torture. [Online] http://www.redress.org/downloads/publications/TerrorismReport.pdf [Accessed on 09 March 2012] Forsberg Ole .J. 2005. Ethnonational Terrorism: An Empirical Theory of Indicators at the State Level, 1985-2000. [Online] http://www.kvasaheim.com/oforsber/docs/ethter.pdf [Accessed on 09 March 2012] Fritscher, Lisa. 2007. USA Patriot Act: Pros And Cons [Online] http://www.lifescript.com/soul/self/growth/usa_patriot_act_pros_and_cons.aspx [Accessed on 09 March 2012] Borgers Matthias and Sliedregt Elies van. 2009. The meaning of the precautionary Principle for the assessment of criminal Measures in the fight against terrorism Erasmus Law Review Volume 02 Issue 02 Rineheart, Jason. 2010. Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency. Perspectives on terrorism. Vol 4, No 5 (2010) http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/122/html United Nations General Assembly Adopts Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. [Online] http://www.un.org/terrorism/strategy-counter-terrorism.shtml [Accessed on 09 March 2012] Read More