Citizens’s Civil Liberties and Government

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The trauma faced by the American people and the country itself by the September 121 terrorist attacks have not only had serious repercussions internationally but also seen internal changes within the United States society as the legal changes have affected the basic civil liberties of the people and their constitutional rights. (Stephens 4)In a very short period of time, both the government security and intelligence personnel have been given sweeping powers not only to spy on the citizens of the country without any proof of a crime, but also keep secret proceedings which were done openly in the past, and to implement actions like racial profiling, detentions without any criminal charges. The government agents can carry out clandestine searches and wiretaps without credible reason, to check people’s internet and library use, and to collect the private report.

Main body

The terrorist strikes of 9/11 together with the possible danger of future attacks have created a huge challenge not only to the government but to the constitution and the civil rights of the American people. The government considers civil liberties as security hazards that necessitate tough administrative action. Restrictions on civil liberties are a result of security procedures. These actions violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue” (Fourth Amendment, US Constitution).

American History shows that when dangers increase, liberties contract– particularly in wartime. Internal intelligence actions -the secret compilation of information by a government on its own people and legal residents have constantly created a severe threat to personal freedom and rights and also to the constitutional government. Dangers to civil liberties are inbuilt in the very character spying on local population. This is because intelligence obviously functions in secret and, thus, it is very difficult to put intelligence activities under checks and balances, which the founding founders though as essential to prevent abuses of power.

When President George Bush defended his action he cited the Article II of the US Constitution. He said: “the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.” (Bush, 2005) However this is not as direct as the president may make sound and above all according to the oath taken by the president he has the supreme responsibility to the Constitution. In the base of President George W Bush the responsibility is being taken too far. The Bush government believes that through restricting the civil liberties the government will be able to protect its people, however history proves otherwise. During the Second World War United states witnessed a dark period when immigrants of Japanese origin were interned. This lack of trust buy the white majority on its immigrant population is therefore not new as today Arabs and Muslims are being prosecueted not just in the US but around the world because of their origins or beliefs.

Extended capacity for spying is a particularly essential aspect of the new efforts. The PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement agencies new power to carry out prolonged telephone and Internet scrutiny. The Patriot Act gives the FBI “a blank warrant,” warned one of the commentators (Hentoff,). Journalists have questioned the holding back of names–one editorial asked “Why Not Disclose?” (Editorial, A 26). And this questioning has continued and gained strength. In reality, according to the Washington Post, people are concerned about their civil liberties and are looking for alternatives other then domestic surveillance (Lane, p. 30).

Mainstream newspapers like The New York Times have been discussing and debating the effect of surveillance and costs of the limits on liberty (Andrews), and The Economist (47-48) also considered the impact on the rights of American people. On November 11, 2003, former President Jimmy Carter condemned President Bush’s actions as attacks on American civil liberties. (Dority, 14) According to Ray McGovern, “…Rather, such abuse constitutes serious trammeling of civil liberties and-still worse-can tip the precarious balance of constitutional checks and balances.” (McGovern, pp. 26-27)

New changes to the USA Patriot Act and related policy regulations have made the FBI’s authority very extensive and has given it the ability screen Self-storage operators to turn over documents. Instead of having to issue a subpoena the FBI can send a National Security Letter (NSL), ordering that a citizen turn over accurate business documents and information. The information can be of specific individual or organizations who rent warehouses or storage facilities and who are being probed under the pretext of national security. The NSL is like subpoena but it is delivered by the FBI and under the justice department guidelines but no judge assesses it. It also makes it mandatory on the recipient to keep it a secret. According to the Washington Post: “The beef with the NSLs is that they don’t have even a pretense of judicial or impartial scrutiny” .

Some like the conservatives at the Brookings Institute argue that the threat is so great from the terrorists after the 9/11 tragedy that it is important for the Congress to reassess a candid, penetrating, and methodical re-examination of the civil liberties system that

“Restrict the government’s core investigative and detention authority. Robust national debate and deliberate congressional action should replace what has so far been largely ad hoc presidential improvisation”.

What the US government is doing is adopting the doctrine of Panopticon: a word from the early 18th century. An initiative from Jeremy Bentham, English philosopher and prison designer, it is a prison system, whereby the warden can keep in view all of the prisoners, all of the time. (Garrard) As surveillance of people increases—–through any means– coercion increases as well. According to Foucault,

“Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.”Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power (Foucault, p. 201).

Government control becomes internalized. Foucault further elaborates:

There are two images, then, of discipline. At one extreme… the enclosed institution… at the other extreme… a functional mechanism that must improve the exercise of power by making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for a society to come (Foucault, p. 209).

The New York Times’ Editorial “Must Do List” is not only critical of the rapid changes witnessed in terms of curtailment of the civil liberties and calls it an assault on the founding principles on the American Democracy. The editorial provides the changes which need to be made so that the civil rights of the Americans and also those from outside America—like the countless number of people in secret jails and in Guantanamo Bay who don’t have a right appeal as they have been denied a right to appeal and are being subjected to torture and treatment which defies all human values.

And things have deteriorated even further as again the democrat majority congress has allowed the president free range in intercepting information from all over the world including the US. As another editorial of New York Times claims,

Instead of explaining all this to American voters — the minimal benefits and the enormous risks — the Democrats have allowed Mr. Bush and his fear-mongering to dominate all discussions on terrorism and national security.

The role of FBI has become very controversial as though various policy changes the powers in the hands of FBI agents has directly infringed the rights of the American citizens. Innocent people are unaware that they are being monitored by different agencies and without any crime being committed people are subjected to mental and emotional trauma.

Conclusion

The progressive changes in the laws and the expansion of jurisdiction different investigative and intelligence agencies and laws which not only defy the basic rights and international conventions have failed to make the US and the world a better place. The reality is very grim as the expanding war on terror has made people insecure not only around the world as people from other countries look at the US as the antagonist but also within America as the citizens feel less secure and as their private lives and dealings are not private anymore.

Works Cited

Andrews, E L. Measuring lost freedom vs. security in dollars. New York Times. 2003.

Bush, G W. President’s Press Conference. White House. 2005. Web.

Dority, B. Your Every Move. The Humanist. 64(1).2004

Editorial. Why not disclose? Washington Post. 2004.

Editorial. “The Must-Do List”. New York Times, 2007, Late Edition. Web.

Editorial. “The Fear of the Fear Itself”. New York Times, 2007, Late Edition. Web.

Foucault, M. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage. 1979.

Garrard, Richard PANOPTICON: Government and Privacy in the New Millennium, 2003.

Gellman, Barton. The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny. Washington Post, 2005.

The Economist. A question of freedom. U.S. edition, 2003.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wikipeadia. Web.

Hentoff, N. John Ashcroft v. the Constitution: Giving the FBI a “blank warrant.” The Village Voice, 2001.

Lane, C. Fighting terror vs. defending liberties: A new debate has crystallized since Sept. 11, Washington Post, 2002.

McGovern, R. High Tech, Low Legality: The NSA Spies on American Citizens. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 25(2); 2006.

Stephens, Tom. Civil Liberties After September 11: Background of a Crisis. Guild Practitioner. 61(1), 2004.

Taylor Stuart, Jr.. Rights, Liberties, and Security: Recalibrating the Balance after September 11Terrorism, Governance, Crime. The Brookings Institution. 2003.

Click Here To Order Now!

Citizens’s Civil Liberties and Government

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)