need two 500 word responses

(Post 1 need 500 word response with a question and two cited references)

This whole argument between civil liberties and national security or security in itself has been an ongoing debate for a long time. To be able to protect our own citizens from different threats such as terrorism while balancing our civil liberties without sacrificing one for the other is hard. Itâ€™s been a struggle for many years to come. James Madison stated, â€œthe great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.â€

So what is civil liberties? According to USHistory.org, Civil liberties are protections against government actions. For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the right to practice whatever religion they please. Government, then, cannot interfere in an individual’s freedom of worship. Amendment I gives the individual “liberty” from the actions of the government.

While many Americans would willingly grant their government extraordinary powers, believing these would never be used against law-abiding citizens like themselves, others see no conflict at all between civil liberties and national security. They would fight terrorism, not with new law enforcement tools, but with blanket restrictions on the minority groups to which the terrorists belong.

Our Constitution, laws, and values are the foundation of our strength and security. Yet, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, our government engaged in systematic policies of torture, targeted killing, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and religious discrimination. It violated the law, eroded many of our most cherished values, and made us less free and less safe (aclu.org).

Freedom entails risk. North Korea has suffered no terrorist attacks, but no one wants to live there. Western Europe and the United States have been struck repeatedly, but they remain the destinations of choice for all those fleeing oppression or seeking opportunity.

Even democratic states must, however, struggle with how to protect their citizens. Collective security requires compromising some individual freedoms. Everyone acknowledges that no person has the right to yell â€˜fireâ€ in a crowded theater, but some countries take restrictions on speech and expression much further.

A good example of civil liberties and national security is what Edward Snowden committed. Many say Mr. Snowden is a true patriot but that is debatable. Mr. Snowden took an oath and was entrusted in protecting classified information. However, he put in national security in danger and betrayed the trust of the American people (washingtonpost.com).

Personally, I think that if one is not hiding anything that seems unethical then why the big argument. We all want to be protected and what not but with those protections, comes sacrifices. Most Americans think that we have full on fledge rights to privacy. Thatâ€™s not necessarily true. We donâ€™t have constitutional right to complete privacy if it endangers the lives of others.

â€œGILMORE: Balancing Homeland Security and Civil Liberties.â€ The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 6 Mar. 2014, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/6/gilmore-balancing-homeland-security-and-civil-libe/.

Mockaitis, T., & Mockaitis, T. (2017, February 19). Apple’s Fight with The FBI Is Just The Tip of the Iceberg. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/security-vs-civil-l…

â€œNational Security.â€ American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/issues/national-security.

(Post 2 need 500 word response with a question and two cited references)

The United States should address two main areas in order to better balance civil liberties with homeland security and defense. First, the government and American public need to adjust their approach to fighting terrorism. Currently, the government spends a huge amount of money and time countering terrorism. However, the small risks of a terrorist attack in America does not warrant such extreme action. Establishing better risk management programs within the government and homeland security agencies may reduce the urge to prioritize security over civil liberties. This is because it will help the government make rational policy decisions instead extreme measures that get passed quickly after catastrophes. Additionally, security agencies should establish checks within their own departments to ensure privacy concerns are addressed. The Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office is an example of this (Paretta, 2015). Americans also must remember that life is not risk free. If the government attempts to make the United States risk free it will spend way too much money and encroach upon citizensâ€™ freedom.

Congress and the courts should also take more action. Laws need to be updated with technology in mind in order to better balance civil liberties with security concerns. There are not many federal laws that limit how government agencies use and store data. Additionally, third party doctrine concerning the fourth amendment should be updated to protect citizenâ€™s data when it is stored on a third-party server (Rigoglioso, 2014). Congress should also improve its oversight of intelligence agencies. When agencies cannot publicize their homeland security methods, it is essential that Congressional committees sign off on questionable tactics. This does not necessarily mean more oversight, but rather just more efficient and effective oversight. The 110th Congress contained 86 committees that had some type of oversight of the Department of Homeland Security (Balunis & Hemphill, 2009). This distracts DHS from their missions and waters down congressional power.

Congress should also aim to narrow the scope of the homeland security measures they pass. If laws are not written to specifically apply to terrorism, they tend to get applied to domestic criminals too. The federal, state and local governments normalize the law and it becomes a regular tool of law enforcement (Donohue, 2009). This restricts the civil liberties of Americans.

The courts also help ensure civil liberties are protected by determining if laws are constitutional. The checks and balances of the United States government are essential to balancing security and civil liberties. The recent Supreme Court ruling that restricted police officers from accessing cell phone data without a warrant shows the checks and balances of government in action (Rigoglioso, 2014). If the other branches of government overstep their authority, it is up to the court system to protect civil liberties.

References

Donohue, L. (2009). The perilous dialogue. California Law Review, 97, 357-392.

Rigoglioso, M. (2014, November 13). Civil liberties and law in the era of surveillance. Retrieved from https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-lawyer/articles/civil-liberties-and-law-in-the-era-of-surveillance/

Paretta, L. (2015). An examination of government data mining and civil liberties complaints in a post 9/11 America. Journal of Applied Security Research, 10(3), 308-316.

Balunis, T., & Hemphill, W. (2009). Escaping the entanglement: Reversing jurisdictional fragmentation over the department of homeland security. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 6(1).