National security vs your Civil Rights …what do you think.
National security in its broader sense includes both, internal and external security. External security involves states implementations of legal codes as a mean to prevent attacks against US borders, infrastructures, terrorism and potential foreign invasion. It use can also help maintained immigration control and international trade.
Whereas internal security has more of a domestic feel to it. It use encompass the expression of political power through democratic process, Owings Mills civil rights lawyer. The security codes that are employed under internal security relate more with finances, public dissatisfaction with governmental issues such as the US patriot Act.
Therefore, to answer the question “Is national security more important than civil rights”; we must first identify which part of national security we’re referring to. Because if it is internal security, I hold the position that a threat against our freedom does exist.
Civil rights is the right for us the citizens of this country to have privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair trial, the right to personal freedom and the right of equal protection. Honestly, as a black person it would not have been unreasonable if I were to ask if I’m included under those rights. As you all should know, if I want I can make this whole article base on the violation of black people’s civil rights.
However, this issue is not about me, the violation of civil right I’m debating here is a threat against all American citizens who lives in this country. The US Patriot Act is not just in place to monitor and listen to potential terrorist conversation. It has become a business, one that is well known to the American people. Manny companies have profited from its use. You see, just because we exercise our civil rights (free speech) by expressing ourselves does not makes us a terrorist. It makes us a concern citizen who cares about his country.
Therefore, when you take our freedom away for expressing ourselves, you violate our civil rights. And it is precisely the reason why we’re so skeptical about the implementation of national security over our civil rights. As we all can see here, the question address for this debate focused on “national security” which is a broader term than internal security. One must understand that the problem that is in conflict with our civil rights here, relates more to internal security than it does to external.
This Patriot Act enacted by George W. Bush was met to strengthen America by tighten up on external and internal security through surveillance such as telephone interception, e-mail communication, invasion and retrievement of citizens financial and medical records. Thus the act included domestic terrorism, is not the problem. It became a problem when innocent people being convicted of terrorism act which their new nothing about. When that happens, as citizens we become fearful for our lives and civil liberty. We then peacefully protested against the notion of national security which led to more arrest, which is another violation of our civil rights.
Now you have asked us to choose between national security & our civil right. Well you have it 14/3 what a sweep, you must think that we’re some kind of idiot. The reason why you have 14 out of 3 people who debate against the notion of national security, dictates a sense of uncomfortability. As citizens of this country, we don’t feel comfortable sacrificing our civil rights for national security, especially when it’s projected in such a vague term.
One must also keep in mind that the Patriot Act was passed under pressure. It came in effect during the post 9/11 hysteria. Americans were all afraid, even members of congress were clueless as to what had happened. From this standpoint, we can say most decisions that derived from this tragedy could have been miscalculated. We have seen the effect and the outcome of its deliberation in Iraq. Now it’s time for us to carefully calculate our decision process and make correct measure not to repeat our mistakes.
We can propose that the national security that is now in question to focus its attention on external security without violating our civil right. It is understood, if regulation must be enacted to secure our territory from terrorism, the regulation should be placed on communication that relates to foreign and domestic countries. Only small emphasis should be placed on our citizen liberty.
But that’s only because we understand that authorities may need to intercept a domestic phone conversation every now and then in order to obtain valuable information. In this case strict regulation must be placed on oversight. We the American people would need to have an independent branch of the government that can investigate intercepted call and know for sure whether or not authorities had probable cause for the interception.
Source: Hubpages.com
Site Title 