- Jul 2, 2012
- 3,075
- 2,596
Ask any American about September 11 and chances are, they recall not only where they were, but also vividly how they felt at that exact moment in time. The tragic day has left such a deep and profound wound in the hearts and minds of Americans and other citizens of the world.
As a direct consequence, the US Government through the constitutional and immensely public-supported Patriot Act and other government enactments has found creative and aggressive ways to combat terrorism, focusing largely on spying through communication media through phones and internet. As recently reported, these gave the government the power to wiretap and to spy on everybody, even the President.
If indeed this is the correct approach, spying on peoples phone calls, emails, internet history, to nip terrorism in the bud, is the government then right to invade people most basic and most fundamental liberties in the name of security? Has the American unwittingly empowered the government for the ironic purpose of undermining freedom?
The official line has always been that people with nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of the government spying on them, even their most personal activities. (Let is also be stated for the record that the government has so far denied all of this). So far so good, but we have to consider, if we are sacrificing so much of our freedom for the sake of security, what about the recent spate of terrorist attacks that still trouble the country? The Boston bombing proves that despite the heavy information that the government had on the bombers, it was still unable to prevent the attack. It seems that we have sacrificed so much not to be safe, but to feel safe.
-Is the government justified in violating essential constitutional liberties in the name of "fight against terrorism".
-Is there any situation at all where violation of individual privacy is justified?
-How then do we strike a balance between our private rights and the capacity of the state to protect us through classified information?
As a direct consequence, the US Government through the constitutional and immensely public-supported Patriot Act and other government enactments has found creative and aggressive ways to combat terrorism, focusing largely on spying through communication media through phones and internet. As recently reported, these gave the government the power to wiretap and to spy on everybody, even the President.
If indeed this is the correct approach, spying on peoples phone calls, emails, internet history, to nip terrorism in the bud, is the government then right to invade people most basic and most fundamental liberties in the name of security? Has the American unwittingly empowered the government for the ironic purpose of undermining freedom?
The official line has always been that people with nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of the government spying on them, even their most personal activities. (Let is also be stated for the record that the government has so far denied all of this). So far so good, but we have to consider, if we are sacrificing so much of our freedom for the sake of security, what about the recent spate of terrorist attacks that still trouble the country? The Boston bombing proves that despite the heavy information that the government had on the bombers, it was still unable to prevent the attack. It seems that we have sacrificed so much not to be safe, but to feel safe.
-Is the government justified in violating essential constitutional liberties in the name of "fight against terrorism".
-Is there any situation at all where violation of individual privacy is justified?
-How then do we strike a balance between our private rights and the capacity of the state to protect us through classified information?
