The correct balance between security and civil liberties has always been a contentious weight to determine – especially for the United States, paragon of freedom that it is. As our country and society get progressively more liberal, we will begin to seriously question the government’s right to invade our privacy based only on a sneaking suspicion of our delinquency. I can’t say what the majority’s opinion will be—and this is what will eventually turn into what future generations see as “history”—but I can speak for myself when I say that I honestly don’t think the government was too out of line. I am completely willing to sacrifice certain civil liberties in favor of personal and national security. After all, what good are rights if you’re not there to enjoy them?
At the same time, I don’t think abusing the power too much is appropriate. The Patriot Act, while invasive and ineffective, could be potentially beneficial. My problem with it, though, is the lack of transparency when the government used/abused the power the act gave them. Fine…go ahead and tap my phone—just tell me that you are! There are obviously certain limitations of what the government should be allowed to do in terms of providing security, and I think the current administration has stayed within that limit. I only ask that if we do have to sacrifice our liberties that we should get something in return. Another attack would be sorely disappointing.
Here’s my bottom line: I don’t mind giving up certain liberties in order to ensure my safety, so long as I am aware of the specific liberties that I am sacrificing. Transparency is key. Further, if I am willing to give up liberties, I should get compensated for it. The government should be able to asses how much an invasion of our liberties is going to pay off in the end. If the pay off is low, then I would be unwilling to part with my liberty. However, if giving the government access to information (not very personal information like credit card numbers, etc.), will really help them “nab that terrorist,” then I would be more than willing to part with that information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree with Sanjana's statements. It is absolutely essential for us to preserve liberties first, because that is what America was founded on. We began as a country where people could be free to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if we begin invading personal privacy to a deeper level, these essentials will be lost. Terrorist attacks such as 9/11 are tragic, however the right response to such an attack is not punishing American citizens by tapping their phones and looking deep into their personal information.
The Patriot Act has absolutely no chance of being beneficial. It is the best example around for illegal actions taken by Congress and the Republican President who choose to make blatantly unconstitutional actions.
Americans have the basic right to privacy, and acts such as the Patriot Act and other illegal actions taken by the current administration must be stopped. History will judge in the future that the Bush administration has completely mishandled the situation by disregarding civil liberties for the promotion of safety, which hasn't proven much safer.
I understand but disagree with Sanjana's points about the balance of security and civil liberties. I believe that her points in theory make sense. If the pay off from giving up certain civil liberties is high enough as far as security goes than yes, that probably would be a good idea. The problem is that the 'payoff' is very difficult to track. We have not had another major terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, but is this due to the government's new policies of civil liberty invasion? I believe that to be unlikely.
My main problem with the Patriot Act and the governments ability to track me and tap my phone is that it tends to be very difficult to take power away from the government once the power has been granted. The Patriot Act makes many tedious parts of our judicial system much easier to deal with. For example, warrants. It is no longer necessary to have a judge from the region that a crime has been committed sign for the warrant. Instead the government has a number of judges that have basically become their lapdogs who will blindly sign warrants for arrest in order to protect our 'national security.' Governments in general abuse the powers given to them and our government is no exception. I look upon Guantanamo bay as a perfect example of this. How many people, many of whom are American citizens need to suffer needlessly, for our 'security.' The government hasn't abused their power? Maybe we should ask someone that spent 5 years in a prison without being allowed to contact their loved ones or even a lawyer because I think their answer would be a definitive YES!
After reading the first five chapters of O'Harrow my view that the government has exploited 9/11 and the countries fear to set of the structure of a police state has been solidified. Our founding fathers biggest fears centered around the government using its power to repress its citizens. That may not be happening on a wide scale yet, but is it possible that it will? I believe yes.
Post a Comment