Those who favor stringent measures such as suspension of civil liberty argue that it is necessary to keep the people safe and secure the nation from terrorism. It is suggested that citizens need not hide anything from the government agencies. A respectful life can be lived if nothing wrong is done by citizens. Those who favor suspension of civil liberties, arguing that people do not hesitate to unfold their personal information on social media, but feel uneasy when questioned about their personal matters by government agencies. It is also argued that national security interests should be given top priority. 1
President Obama’s remark speaks about the two-mindedness of the approach towards civil liberties: “You can’t have 100% security and then also have 100% privacy and inconvenience. Those that sacrifice liberty for security will, in the end, have neither, nor deserve neither.” 2
Contrary to what President Obama remarked, it is rightly remarked by Benjamin Franklin that “When the government has a hold over its people such as the power to strip rights, it is oppressive and a type of tyranny.” 3
The police departments and security agencies are empowered with new legislation in many countries, including America, Britain, and Australia, with the sole aim of getting information from citizens to combat terrorism; policemen detain and interrogate innocent people. The threat from terrorism is actually not a justifiable explanation to enact counterterrorism legislation, as it has increased the degree of risk to the personal security of citizens. A situation has arisen when we are more at risk from counterterrorism than from terrorism. 4
Those who speak in favor of stringent measures in the name of controlling terrorism, leading to an attack on citizens’ civil liberties, offer two related assumptions for their stand.