Terrorism versus Civil Liberty - Admission/Application Essay Example

Terrorism versus Civil Liberty Introduction Terrorism is one of the issues that have troubled humankind for such a long time. Hardly a day passes without news about a terrorist attack, activity or an aborted attempt. Whereas terrorists are aggregating their action to express their sentiments, efforts employed to counter them have been greatly questioned. There seems to be a very thin line between fighting terrorism and denial of civil liberties. Many people are crying foul over the attempt by the government to fight terrorism by making people sacrifice on their civil liberties for the fight. A debate held at UCLA International Institute pose a very strong argument on their article “Terrorism vs. Civil Rights: A debate”. This essay presents an argumentative approach to this contemporary issue. Is there sincerity in fighting terrorism or is it a denial of civil liberties? Inasmuch as the government is trying to fight terrorism, denial of civil liberties seems to take center stage. Addressing Terrorism It would be unjustified to present an argument about terrorism and civil liberties without first having to define what these two words. Terrorism refers to any action of evil or destructive intent committed by a person or a group of persons with intention of making their thoughts and interests known. Civil liberty on the other hand refers to the basic human rights granted to citizens as defined on the constitution. One of the main ways by which the government protects its citizens against terrorists is by, “Collecting domestic and international intelligence on human rights violators and violations through our field offices, our legal attaché offices overseas, and our network of sources inside and outside the country, and our relationships with domestic and international law enforcement partners” (FBI 1). Such sensitive measures are essential in ensuring that the country is secure from terror. However, the manner in which the same is executed raises many eyebrows. Though the line is between freedom from terror and fruits of civil liberty are so thin, measures taken by the government are increasingly cutting back on civil liberties hence necessitating an argument about these policies. The Patriotic Act War on terror has heightened for the last several decades. The war must have gained momentum after the bombing of the world trade center on September 11. After the bombing, the government enacted the antiterrorism act of 1996. Under this act, many ways of approach to terrorism changed. Although the government was acting for the best interest for the people of America, it can be argued that the efforts have been overstepped such that the antiterrorism act is being used against the same people it is supposed to protect. The UCLA debate raised a very strong point of concern “It seems more likely that hundreds of innocent people will be become suspects” (Thorson 1). Freedom of Speech and Association One of the strategies used by the federal government to subdue rise of terror groups is by suppressing any factions or groups that seem to have an agenda likely to lead to terrorist activities. Whereas this is a genuine way of controlling terrorist activities before they take place, it can be argued that the same policies are used to suppress Americans. The freedom of speech and association is greatly put into jeopardy. There is potential abuse of such policies when they are used to disband and break up innocent citizens who are genuinely expressing their concerns to the government. Freedom of speech and association goes up in flames all in the name of war on terror. Privacy Right to privacy is one of the most fundamental civil liberties. In the efforts to fight terrorism, government has enacted ways of gathering information and intelligence regarding crime and terrorism planning and activities. In order to do this, the government enacted policies allowing for wiretapping of all communication networks for in America. In addition, the policies also allowed for bugging of homes, buildings, offices, impromptu break-ins, as well as informants. War on terror is not simple and the government has act in all capacity to protect its citizens. However, this surveillance powers have arguably gone beyond the limits. In fact, there is no any line demarcating between spying on unsuspecting civilians and spying on terrorists. It is actually claimed that “ on August 17, 2006, a U.S. District Court judge found the NSA wiretapping program to be illegal under FISA and unconstitutional under the First and Fourth amendments” (Freedomhouse 1). It is a true violation of civil liberties. Renditions The U.S government has to extend the long arm of the law in order to reach out to potential terrorists out of U.S boundaries. To do this effectively, the government had to enact rendition policies in order to work hand in hand with foreign governments in identifying, arresting, trying, and convicting terrorists. Despite this being a way of protecting both U.S and the world at large, it can be argued that the same policies gave the government offer rendition on anyone outside the U.S soil with the help of other governments. Cato gives a perfect example on this issue, “ Mr. Jewell's privacy rights were thrown to the wolves by the FBI, as were the rights of the 900-plus citizens whose files were handed over to the White House” (Cato 1) Arguably, civil liberties of those differing in opinion of the government can be violated in this loophole. Detainment camps Anyone familiar with fight for civil liberties knows something about detainment camps especially Guantanamo Bay. It is important and essential for the government to have a secure place where all potential terrorists are held as the process of ascertaining their innocence is verified. The detainment camp is also essential in extracting information from terrorists and other suspects. In addition, it is also a safe place to keep terror suspects to keep them off from innocent citizens. While this ensures safety for the Americans, it is arguably one of the most criticized moves by the government regarding detainment of innocent people. Many innocent Americans who dared to challenge the government about various issues affecting the society have more often than not found themselves on Guantanamo Bay. According to a report by Freedomhouse, “Amnesty International has expressed the views of many human rights advocates in asserting that as a result, the detainees are "held in effect in a legal black hole, many without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits” (Freedomhouse 1). Arguably, the facility has been used and will continue to be used to detain both innocent and guilty Americans. This clear loophole on antiterrorism policies being used to infringe on civil liberties of Americans. Power of detention According to the latest antiterrorism policies, it is possible for the government to detain anyone suspected to be a terrorist indefinitely without charges. Many people believed to be terrorists members or leaders have been detained in detention camps for a time the government deems appropriate for analyzing their involvement in terrorism activities. Any government would do this for the best interest of its country. However, this detention has greatly been contested. Freedomhouse gave an example of a man who was unlawfully detained by the government. “The government maintained the right to detain him indefinitely as an enemy combatant and filed no charges against him” (Feedomhouse 1) It is argued that this policy creates a leeway in which the government can detain innocent civilians who may be having genuine reasons to exercise their civil liberty rights through freedom of association. This policy creates a loophole for violation of civil liberties. Conclusion The government is doing everything possible to contain the terror menace that continues to threaten the lives of Americans and the whole world at large. Several measures have been taken to secure the safety of everyone by use of various antiterrorism policies. Whereas the government is sincere in its efforts to keep the world a terror free place, the policies employed have certainly created loopholes through which civil liberties have been violated. It might be very difficult if not impossible to enjoy civil liberties while at the same time fighting terrorism, but the government must always ensure that civil liberties are protected at all times. Various counterterrorism acts and policies such as those infringing on freedom of speech and association have arguably been violated to some extent. It is the government’s primary objective to protect these civil liberties especially in these modern times. Works Cited Cato. Combatting Terrorism, Protecting Freedom. 1996. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-18n6-5.html. 31, October 2011. FBI. Human Rights Violators. No Safe Haven in the U.S. 2010. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/july/human-rights 31, October 2011 Freedomhouse. The Civil Liberties Implications of Counterterrorism Policies: Full Chapter. 2011. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=384&key=118&parent=5&report=61. 31, October, 2011. Thorson, Carl. Terrorism vs. Civil Rights: A debate. 2003. http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=3576. 31, October 2011 Read More