The War on Terrorism Has Not Compromised Civil Liberties In the wake of 9/11, the United States of America began to fight a war on terrorism. Many in this country would say we actually started a war against ourselves. One argument is the war on terrorism has begun to erode our civil liberties. Have our civil liberties really been abused or have they been slightly altered by the Patriot Act to protect all Americans best interests? To fully protect Americans from future terrorist attacks monitoring, the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, and the Patriot Act have been essential components.
The “War on Terrorism”, does not have a limit of enemies, a location, or a way to end. Many people are ready to sacrifice their personal freedoms in an act of patriotism to help us win the war. These concerns are the greatest potential for danger with this war. In a speech to Congress... ... middle of paper ... ...how the U.S. government got wind of his alleged offer to supply military information to the terrorists. Maybe we as Americans are being robbed of our individual liberties and freedoms by the auspices of national security.
The cause of both these problems are very similar, and correlate well together. If they, the government, can influence the need to send the military to combat terrorism, then it can also implement new security policies and regulations, and claim it’s because of the terrorist threat. It also works if there is an attack on American soil, such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing, that the US can condone stricter security measures, and the public all but demands we use our military to revenge those killed in the
President Bush's decision to consider establishing military tribunals to prosecute accused terrorists has set off a major debate on civil liberties in the United States. Supporters argue that such a measure is a constitutional necessity to address terrorism of an unprecedented scope. Opponents claim that the tribunals would undermine the rule of law and deprive defendants of the protection provided for in the American system of justice. My research and personnel experience on the subject has found the tribunals to be in direct accordance of what the President of the United States his charged to do. It’s the duty of the President to ensure the safety of all citizens.
She Maintains that the act has already thwarted further acts of terror by helping law enforcement break up terror cells, convict people guilty of terror-related crimes, and prevent foreign criminals and terrorists from entering the United S... ... middle of paper ... ...mines the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. There was obviously some concern about this by Congress, which is the reason that the Patriot Act was sunset at five years. One day after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center President Bush vowed, ?We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.? Unfortunately, by becoming an aggressive advocate of the Patriot Act, the President is doing just that. During Bush?s State of the Union speech, he emphasized that a key role of our government was to protect us from foreign terrorists.
He then proceeded to inform the American people of the work that had been accomplished in Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighboring countries since the declaration of war, all while substantiating the need for ongoing military presence in the Middle East. In addition to informing the nation, he attempted to ensure the safety of the American people and warn those with intentions to harm Americans or their allies. On May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama informe... ... middle of paper ... ...”. He further claims that bin Laden’s death was a great achievement and “we’ve disrupted terrorists’ attacks and strengthened our homeland”, but “his death is not the end of our effort”. In order to justify the need for military troops to remain in Afghanistan, he stated that “we must remain vigilant at home and abroad”.
The Government's Actions Against Terrorism There have been many actions taken by the government since September 11th to assure the American people that things are back to normal and to make us feel safe again. The federal government has approved secret military tribunals for accused terrorists. The Patriot Act has given law enforcement unprecedented powers to tap phones, increase wiretaps, and read emails. Federal and states lawmakers are proposing many laws limiting access to public record. Airport security will face many changes in the coming years and the government will use new technologies, such as biometrics, for identification.
Similarly to the United States, on September 22nd, the Russian parliament was debating on which possible new restrictions and laws can be enforced in order to “guarantee” better national security. New laws in the United States, such as the right to declare a “state of war ,” make the country seem as if it has more power than neighboring areas, helping to comfort any fearful, or paranoid, citizens. Terrorism, as well as other ethnic conflicts, has even caused the people of Asia-Pacific countries to create new laws in reaction to the threats, simply because they became intimidated. An article in the Financial times stated that it is trying to boost their “political momentum” behind the battle of terrorism, promising to take practical steps to improve their co-operation . New laws were being considered, due to the fear and security levels o... ... middle of paper ... ...ked and used as hideouts.
Henry Kissinger, a man whose been investigated for his secretive activities and tried for war crimes, was now called to investigate the biggest crime against America. It took Bush over... ... middle of paper ... ...age. The government need stop blaming other countries for their own terrorist actions. Their needs to be a full open investigation into the government war on terrorist headed by an investigator chosen by the American people. The American citizens need to stand for what they feel is morally right and not what they are told to stand up for.
Defining Success in the War on Terrorism In pursuing its war on terrorism, the Bush administration faces daunting military and diplomatic challenges. But need it also worry about mobilizing public support? With the latest polls showing the public giving the president 90 percent approval ratings and endorsing the use of force at the same level, could the White House possibly hope for any more backing from the American people? President Bush seems to think so. Every speech he gives appears to be primarily concerned with shoring up public opinion, warning us about the difficulties ahead and purposefully praising Americans for their "patience and resolve."