Is national security more important than civil rights?
88
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. 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.
The Patriot Act has been used illegally against its citizens. Countless individuals have been falsely detained & deported for terrorist act which they did not commit. It does not matter who the president is in this case, our civil rights is a right that we the American people hold dear to our hart, one we’re willing to fight for, because without it we’re nothing.
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 stand point, 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 place 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.
CommentsLoading...
That's right our civil rights come first without it we're nothing.
Civil Rights First, National Security second and the government has continue to invade our privacy without respect to its American people. You should write an article on the violations of Civl Rights amongst the Black People your voice needs to be heard, as the entire country is not made up of white people. Speak out, Martin Luther King did, Malcolm was up and coming until Farakhan had his way. :)
Well, maybe another time but thanks for the proposition.
Hello, Cool. My answer is DEFINITELY NOT. National security DEPENDS on civil rights being honored. As MLK said, "No justice, no peace." Who wants to live under Martial Law? When people's civil rights are trampled, people lose faith in government. When that happens, anarchy is not far behind. The government natually answers anarchy with Martial Law. Therefore, national security rests on the government honoring the civil rights of its citizens, unless the U.S. is to have another type of government altogether - not government of, by, and for the people. Civil rights and human rights have got to be PRIORITIES in any democracy, and those rights must not be eroded for the sake of security. In fact, making civil rights a priority is what keeps the country secure.
Blessings!
Mary
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who once said:
"Any society willing to sacrifice a measure of freedom for a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
A well written hub!
National Security comes first. Always and forever.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear and I could care less of that which you are involved in -- collectively speaking, unless of course, a person is looking to strike fear in the collective heart of law abiding folk.
I've got a solution for America. Anyone that draws a gun on a law abiding citizen in an effort to obtain anything of value is truly saying, "Give me X,Y or Z or I'll kill you."
Zero tolerance should immediately come into play for the "perp." I think the United States should by a ranch, dig a few wells on that ranch, give people with a rap sheet a few starter cattle, chickens and seed and if they cannot fend for themselves -- they die.
Oh but God bless the USA, praiz-ya-Jesus, we live in a weak nation that is not willing to truly protect law abiding folk. Pretty sick really and probably far more expensive collectively than if we were to follow the aforementioned plan.
Covert tryin to be transparent. Ft. Meade had massive Ears to begin with and now they need hearing aids because the sheer volume of chatter is piercing.Seems like a waste to me. The funds would have payed dividens in HUMINT. Orewellian?
If you and I were in a fight face to face we would know our enemy... But as the current state of affairs goes we are fighting a faceless enemy. Who is the enemy? Who is the terrorist that we have to spend billions of dollars each month to defend ourselves from on soil that is not ours? The enemy might just be the bully picking the fight?
The bottom line is we can not trust the Government to come clean and tell the truth. So whats the real point in the war? Who are we fighting?
And people don't want war. People want to live their lives and be free and be happy and to have homes, and families, and children and worship as they believe.
But the United States likes to play world police and inflict their views on others thus generating the hatred.
You can not legislate morality. There are one and a half billion Muslims in the World. And that represents 25% of the World's population. And you are not going to legislate their belief systems.
Personal rights and liberties as defined by the consitution are being continually curtailed in the name of "security". I agree with the first comment entirely.
Well I'd like to believe that we fighting Al-Queda, Talibin - at least something to justify our tax money. But who to say that the apples that have said to found benighted the apple tree really came from it. What if someone placed it there? So in that sense you right "the enemy might just be the bully picking the fight" After all, as you put it "You can not legislate morality" As much as i would have liked to see all women to have the ability to do as they wish, it can't be possible if some of them sees their restrictions as a religious practice.
However, it can be said if countless women are being harass, especially rape then this condition can becomes a violation of human right, which may call for action on the United State part.
We should also keep in mind that our engagement in Afghanistan is partly an offensive move on the president part as a way to alter Al-QUEDA'S dedication to attack US soil. I know you view this issue differently - but not include this possibility, would mean that we're too much of powerful nation to be attack.
And you know as well as i know that no horse is too big to ride.
Sometimes, the government seems to be more preoccupied with national security than protecting our civil rights. Civil Rights protection and ensuring national security seem to be "irreconcilable" nowadays.
The S.S. in Germany's Nazi party during worold war two comes to mind when talking about national security or lack of because of such an organized independent organization ,like the a C.I.A only more pervasive.
The collapse of our civil rights as we know them started a long time ago.Our personal beliefs about politics should not have an effect on our civil rights ,however this administration is pushing it.
having read the comments I have noted, that its all black and white, no considerations of circumstances or debate of what price security.
though I to hold that national Security at the expense of our Rights is unconstitutional, and should be fought in any way we can. I also believe in a strong defense.
here in lies the problem, how to do both, is it even possible. over the years the courts have stepped beyond their powers and issued opinions that have become defacto laws, and several of these laws deny us the ability to defend ourselves. they also leave us open to law suits, and possible jail time if we do something to stand up for our security.
somewhere along the line, the idea that the founding fathers had that we are responsible not only for our personal defense but that of our nation and communitys. has been replaced by, only the experts can deal with these issues.
then add in any attempt to find solutions no matter which side of the aisle your on is met by Screams of racism, fascism, intolerance, and bigotry.
so how do we deal with it.. becuase sure as Im sitting here typing some one out there is plotting an attack. some one is walking thru a Mall in America thinking how easy it would be to kill all these fat, happy sheep as they waste oxygen.
if we act proactive, we might violate rights if we are reactive, then there are screams of conspiracy, and failure to act. and god knows how many innocents might die.
Decide for yourselves. its easy to state No way.. or take my rights and make me safe. but its hard to actually study the problem and find a solution that preserves our rights and provides safety.
National Security, whether internal or external, is nothing if civil rights of a person is curtailed. No person wants his freedom of movement and expression be suppressed, even a two-year old child who can walk and say "mom and dad" would resist this.
National Security is threatened only if there is dissatisfaction from its citizenry if not in the system of government but because of its leaders and how these leaders execute or implement their leadership that would best serve the interest of its people.
Personally, i believe National Security is good for us all. just because they have to power to search through our private information doesnt mean they are going to spend days reading emails you've sent to loved ones, no matter how juicy the topic. The National Security works as our back-bone, and without it we would simply fall to the ground. and whats the problem with it if you've got nothing to hide? and if you do have something to hide, why'd you do it? just ask yourself those questions. We've all got to have a little more trust in our Nation.
I recall right after 911, out of the blue all the news stations began asking people if "they would be willing to give up some freedoms if it would make the nation more secure". I couldn't understand where that came from, no politician ever said anything about it. It was almost like the news stations were given a script, and were following it. Then came the Patriot Act. Before his election Obama said he would end the wiretapping provisions and many of the draconian infractions that the patriot act allowed, sadly enough he lied. Not only did he not end the atrocities committed by the patriot act, he expanded their powers and scope.
Are we more safe today then in 2001? I surely don't feel so. Our boarders are still a open door to anyone wishing to saunter into this country. If the patriot act is such a good law, why didn't they catch the Ft. Hood murderer? And do you know that the Ft. Hood killer was on Obama's transition team hired to facilitate his move into the white house?
It's not Denmark, but something sure stinks! I say repeal all provisions of the Patriot Act, and return to the American people all freedoms that have been taken away from us. We are adults, we can handle it.
I see that this hub was written months ago, but I just want to say that I'm glad you're sppeaking up. I'm trying to. All American Citizens should have Civil Rights. The Patriot Act itself should be against the law. I don't understand why Obama hasn't gotten rid of it. But I DO want our country protected from terrorists. I think all politicians phones and internet should be monitored. JK
Some cases are not quite as simple as all that. society, in the last 20 years or so has allowed the justice system extraordinary latitude in interpretation of drug laws, for example, in laws that protect children, and the use of lethal force where a police office feels threatened, though the suspect was backing away.
In the absence of trial or legal proceedings, a jailhouse(such as Orange County California) with the
tacit approval of guards saw an enraged mob of inmates beat a newly arrested suspect to death, believing as the arresting officer suggested, he was a child sexual predator. His real crime wasn't disclosed but it seemed to have something to do with internet pornography.
Now, if society wants to kill sex offenders, or cut of their hands, or put them in stocks, then it should get on with it and pass the laws. Once the laws are passed, perhaps we could go back to real investigations and not trial by community, or scapegoating, and pushing for convictions regardless of guilt or innocence. Get the stalkers of alleged criminals out of the process. Hang-up late-night phone calls, break-ins to get information off computers, constant drive by's by groups riding around in big trucks, and making slashing across the throat gestures seem downright terrorist in nature. Acid attacks on the car, as well as tire cuttings and mail theft also seem extreme and do happen. happen.Allowing para-police types to flood neighborhoods and businesses with "information" about accused suspects--such as alleged crimes, whether true or false.
The largest and fasted growing organizations center around capturing the imagination of youth, recruiting them over the internet and other media, then giving them adult supervised permission to gather and disseminate information about former offenders of any kind. Who would suspect, for example, that the young neighbor is a spy gathering information of potentially criminal or other damaging information. This, of course can lead to tragic consequences, such as the jailhouse murder, and, the house recently bombed on a street, formerly peaceful, that had a recently released burglar move in. Of course he moved out immediately, as did several of the neighbors, most whom had lived in the area for many years.
If this is what you want for your community, then why is there so much secrecy surrounding these clandestine activities. America has never been a country that encouraged civil spying, especially from para-police groups. When agents are non-sworn, especially, those with lots of zeal and little training, abuses can and do occur. If spying is necessary, and sometimes it is the only way to "get the goods," it should be used under the authority of a judge who has the power to issue (or not) a warrant, so that sworn police or agents may do their job so that rights are defended and the case will hold up in court.
My image of police is not of gangsters in uniform throwing their weight around.In just the last couple months in California, several officers have been killed in the line of duty, including two highway patrolmen who were risking their lives to help stranded freeway motorists. Several friends from high school went on to become sworn officers of the law. Our scoutmaster was a detective, later chief of police in Long Beach, California. Officers who took my classes excelled academically and were welcome and informed participants. I, among others, organized a police soft-ball team which is still active after 20 years.
Thanks for the info Mike..
im bored. poopoopoopoopoopoopoopoopoo
You had me until you referred to yourself as a black person. What the fuck does your race have to do with this subject. I have literally bled in combat and the hand of our nations enemies. and people like you piss me off that pull the race card when it suites you. We are the "United States" correct, not the "Segregated States". Well then stop segregating yourself. Your first reaction to this is "Oh he is a racist", But I have 120,000 brothers in Green and it makes no difference what color they are. There is a bond that nothing can break, not even the fiercest enemy of our nation. I know that they have my back, and I theirs, and that is in every sense of the word, "United."
Hi! there soldier
The topic in question is:
Is national security more important than civil right? You asked "what the fu_k does my race have to do with this subject"? That's an excellent question because not everyone can see the relationship. Civil rights was the reason why we had a civil war. Civil rights was the reason why the Federal Government intervene to stop race riots.
National security issues can be related to black issues if for example black people choose to organize in favor of a particular interest. Any situation where people organize for a particular function can be investigated by the government whether or not the purpose of they unity is not a threat to national security.
You may want to ask yourself why would the government wants to know why people are organizing. Now, if you believe the countries citizens can also be a threat to national security it would have been easy for you to understand why. But in some cases citizens organize for their own personal interest not for anything else.
The way most people sees it is that government should not intervene in their activities if there are not a threat to society. You have to keep in mind that they have been people who were held hostage by the government and latter these people were found not guilty. The Guantanamo Bay issues is a good example of that. If we are a Country that stands for freedom we should try to protect it whenever possible. And by letting free those who are not a threat to our national is one way to start.
I would advise next time you debate someone try to put your anger aside. You will never be effective if you allow your anger to direct your reason. Your reasoning will be fragmented with cloudy concepts. Thanks for your reply - Check me at http://peoplebreeze.com
Yes, The Patriot Act is way out of hand. Yes, we as American Citizens deserve to have our Civil Liberties. Yes, it is wrong to invade the Privacy of American Citizens by the Govt., by the Police, and by other U.S. Citizens, and non-citizens/residents of the U.S. Unfortunately, sometimes there are no "easy answers" for Govt./ Our President. We have inside and outside threats in our Country, and many delicate issues and challenges in assessing these threats, identifying them, and in our dealings with other countries. Yes, mistakes have happened, and Yes, mistakes will continue to happen, but it is not all on our Govt. U.S. Citizens and non make plenty of mistakes, too. And No, our Judicial/Justice System is not perfect by any means. Laws/ The Law, in general needs a serious overhauling. It is entirely frustrating. But what are you going to do about it, beyond trolling comment sections and misquoting quotes? Which among you are by any means perfect, perfectly innocent, and even well-informed? What do you intend to do to attempt to improve the situation, or even just pick one good and worthy battle to fight? Instead of worsening matters for those who do try, and do want a proper balance? I'd say that rampant online and off piracy, malicious hacking, harming others, etc., is doing absolutely nothing to help anyone out. And then who is to say what percentage of what people/citizens and non/ residents of other countries, and their govts., are doing more harm than good, and as opposed to our own govt.? In the end, we all have blood on our hands, in one way or another, but it is up to each individual to decide whether or not to take good actions and informed actions, rather than taking bad actions. So, who are you, and what is your agenda, and do you need to rethink your own ideas, ideals, methods, motives, and actions? Together we stand, divided we fall. And we do not stand together, as a people, at all.
![Education: K - 12 - Is an Issue About National Security. [23]](http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4242509_50.jpg "Education: K - 12 - Is an Issue About National Security. [23]")
tony0724 3 years ago
There Is an old saying by I believe Ben Franklin ,that he who barters his rights for security ends up with neither !