Surname Name:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

How we need to balance Terrorism and Civil Rights Civil rights restrictions to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism may be one of the most controversial subjects facing America. Before the starting this assignment, I was apprehensive of this topic of balancing terrorism and civil rights; however, I learned so much from this research. In this essay, I will give an explanation of the balance that may be required, and also discuss how we can balance terrorism and civil rights in the U.S. Recently, terrorism has brought to the publics eye the violent tactics used by terrorist, against humanity. The September 11 terrorist attacks, in the New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, lead to the passing of the Patriot Act, which has placed drastic limitations on various freedoms such as freedom of religion, the press freedom and the freedom of speech. A few examples of these limitations may include: people who have been searched from telling anyone about the search orders subjected to them. The media ought to report only positive features of the U.S. on efforts concerning combating terrorism; for example, reporting that Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq being forced to eat pork, which violates basic rules of the Muslim religion, may lead to a violation of this Act (O'Connor & Sabato, 2009). These violations Patriot Act can also be seen in the Fourth Amendment which includes: the government allowed the examining of all records of an individual held, through a third party, and the

Surname

governments right expansion of searching private property devoid of the owner's permission or knowledge (O'Connor & Sabato, 2009). These violations show that we must come up with a balance between terrorism and civil rights. The security of the State may be of paramount meaning to the veracity and honor of the U.S. and to its citizens whose freedom and rights may be protected by the States security. However, such powers may affect the citizens rights and possibilities exist for governments to vanish behind the national security doctrine with the intention of preventing national security scrutiny. This may raise two questions constitutionally: the degree to which arrangements may secure some balance between the protections of individuals rights and the competing State Security need. Secondly, may be the way in which, and the extent to which, the U.S. government may be held accountable for exercised powers in the pretext of State Security this may be either through the democratic process and supervision of the courts. It may be critical to Protect Americans from threats that may be foreign such as terrorism; the Federal government ought to do its best in taking appropriate measures to have the safety of its citizens, but it ought not to infringe upon a citizens civil rights. There may be no doubt, that the Patriot Act may be representing a trend of the American government that may be emerging today; the trend of having to sacrifice the American Creeds ideals for security exchange. Americans may have fought the Revolutionary War to get the basic liberties such as the civil rights and which no humans ought to live without. The Americans ought to not so easily, have their rights and liberties relinquished from them, for mere security illusions, for so long as the American society exists. Justice may be a balancing act, and those who may have followed issues on criminal justice, may be aware that justice policy debates often have the reflection of fundamental

Surname disagreements concerning the extent to which the emphasize on civil rights guaranteed by the

Constitution. Generally, and especially in the world of academics, the emphasis on civil rights in the American system, have the innocence presumption, and the traditional respect for civil rights of accused persons, that may be regarded essential in the U.S. democratic society. All together, it may be recognized widely that law enforcement agencies that operate in both very dangerous and complicated situations, must have to confront threats that may seem more consequential and immediate than those linked to restricted civil rights abstractions. For a few, having to strike the right balance between terrorist and civil rights with an effective crime-control system, may seem as a matter that limit rights and empowers the law enforcement agencies. Out of this distress, must have approaches that balance terrorism and civil rights and also the practicality of the requirements of law enforcement agencies such as legal innovations that may be well-known as the public safety exception. Seeking the right balance between terrorism and civil rights may doubtlessly have to continue as a central criminal justice system preoccupation. Due to this increased threat of terrorism, the United States government has denied certain population their civil rights and freedoms. The congress enactment of the patriot Act was to provide appropriate tools to obstruct and intercept terrorism. This Act may also be termed as the "2001 Anti-Terrorism Act", and has been criticized numerously by civil rights advocates since its provisions lacked adequate debate before its adoption. This Act was supposed to ultimately protect Americans from threats of terrorism by giving more power to the government. The Act contains many flaws, and it gives law enforcement agencies the freedom of searching homes that may be suspicious of terrorism, with no involvement of warrant. Moreover, the government does not give any warning either prior to or after carrying out searches. It also gives the government the access right to tax records and medical records, as well as books borrowed and bought by

Surname American citizens. To me this Act infringes on civil rights, and we ought to adopt an international response to the threat of terrorism, that may be effective and which does not compromise on the civil rights.

Many critics argue that the guaranteed rights, put in place by the Bill of Rights, may be weaker due to the many provisions of the Act. This Act creates provision that may be new in terrorism issues. 'Domestic terrorism may be one of the issues adopted that may be new and loosely defined'. The Act has the distinction between foreign intelligence and domestic criminal investigations, broken down. This distinction may be aimed at protecting U.S. citizen's private lives from the intrusion by the government. The government is allowed by the Act to use secret searches and wiretapping of telephones on non-citizens and the citizens of the U.S., so as to gather intelligence during investigations, for a purpose of criminal investigation. The officers investigating do not have to a probable cause established of the occurrence of the crime. According to the civil rights advocates, these additional methods of investigation may not necessarily address the threats of terrorism that may be extraordinary (Russell, 2004).The civil rights advocates may be concerned with broader implications and the long-term reduction of legal rights in pretence of terrorism acts response. The Act has a broad definition of domestic terrorism that raises anxiety of it being used on foreign tourists that may be suspicious. This law may be applied to innocent citizens, hence, violating their civil rights. These include; innocent citizens that engage in civil disobedience, international financial institutions, and World Trade Organizations. These advocates accuse the government of the use of the international fight against terrorism in a manner of normalizing powers of gathering intelligence, arrest and surveillance that may be greater.

Surname The United States constitution may be the supreme law, but, it ought to be used as a policy implementation benchmark by the citizens, especially in the protection of the freedoms

and civil rights of its citizens. However, several issues that have been raised may be criticizing it. The introduction of the 2001 anti-terrorism Act may be one of the debates that arise from the U.S. constitution. The Act that may be referred to Civil rights Act, have been criticized since it denies the civil rights to immigrants and the minority groups. This may have occurred typically following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, where detention of immigrants unlawfully, on accusations they had threats to the U.S. security. The Muslim and Arab men coming from the Middle East were more often than not were affected because of the belief that their religion and consisted terrorists. Some acts of government officials, had these immigrants subjected to detention with no prompt charges made to the suspects, criminal activity investment using immigration detention that denied the suspects access to a lawyer and bail, physical and verbal abuse among numerous detention restrictive condition. It may be, therefore, of major concern that fighting against terrorism may have lead to reduced civil rights particularly to the immigrants. Following the 2001 attacks, the U.S. government authorities had immigrants detained periods of six months repeatedly, which may be against their civil rights caused by unlawful detention. Though these attacks have finely tuned the valuable awareness of democratic principle, it may also have shifted the balance between civil rights and terrorism, risking some values that may be core to the U.S citizens. There may be no questions that have changes that may have characterized in recent that have involved a reinterpretation that may be radical of the executive branch responsibilities the rights of the U.S citizens and responsibilities of the law enforcement agencies. Having the argument the measures may be justified by global terror war demands, may have parameters that

Surname

may be ill-defined. There may be an assertion by the government openly, that it has the right to make arrests of suspects without review of the judicially, The government imposes lengthy incarcerations that have no trial or even any courts access, so as to have political groups investigated by criminal justice agencies devoid of any criminal wrongdoing evidence. Privacy rights have been brought into question as the branch of the executive branch as it has a claim to the right of engaging in practices that may be controversial that may make it easier for agencies of the government to track credit information and library use, to monitor electronic and monitor mail communications, and to have searches in private homes, without serving first, kind of warrants that were traditionally described in the Fourth Amendment. The use of witnesses and secret evidence to have the suspected terrorists justify detention may be clearly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, which may be now regarded by the people in power at Washington as the traditional standards or justifiable wartime exception. These practices of Coercive interrogation and habeas corpus suspension for suspected terrorists may have to be done with since, not entirely the radical of the numerous skidding from conventional practices of American legal culture, by the executive branch. Accordingly, these practices and policies as a whole may have dramatically alteration of the balance between terrorism and civil rights, hence, the requirement of effective terrorism policy that protects the civil rights of the American people and other foreigners. Conclusion The balance between terrorism and civil rights may have increased the U.S governments willingness to trade-off its citizens civil rights to enhance the sense of security. This trade-off may be argued to ultimately leave U.S. citizens both unsatisfied and unsafe. I believe that the federal government should particularly enact laws and policies that take into consideration the

Surname

citizens civil rights through pressure from the citizens. Americas fear of terrorist attacks may not justify the broad increases of the governments power of simultaneously undercutting vital civil rights. Some of our vital political and legal traditions may have to be challenged with new government policies related to the terrorism war. In a nutshell, the Patriot Act may be repealed to consequently better laws that concern terrorism formulated and enacted in a manner that may be not against the civil rights of American people and foreigners that visit America. These may include ideas that may be fundamental such as the right of having counsel, the innocence presumption, the right to access the courts, rights of privacy, right of confronting witnesses.

Surname Works Cited D. K. "NSL Provision Ruled Unconstitutional." American Libraries 38.9, 2007: 27-27. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. J.D. Williams Library, University, MS. 29, 2007. Honderich, T. After the Terror, Revised, Expanded edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2003. Print.

O'Connor, K., & Sabato, L.J., (2009). American Government Roots and Reform (alternate ed.). Longman, NY. 2009. Print. Russell, R. Intelligence Failures: The Wrong Model for the War on Terror. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2004. Print.