Introduction
The end of the Cold War and attacks of 9/11 dramatically altered the landscape of United States national security endeavors. Gone was the singular, nearly tactile threat as presented by a major superpower, and in its place was the “amorphous nature of a terrorist opponent,” (Snow, 2014, p. 112). This novel threat defied easy definition or identification, and attacked in ways to which the U.S. had grown unaccustomed. Phrases like “asymmetrical warfare” and “war on terror” were used liberally by an executive branch wholly unprepared for mitigating such a threat, and exploited to justify any number of means to achieve an end that as yet remains elusive. With the threat now subsiding, and certain means of statecraft and defense now thrust into the harsh light of public scrutiny, we are faced with questions of worth. Specifically, have the measures utilized in pursuit of national security been worth the human costs of moral ambiguity, privacy encroachment, and civil liberty infringement?
Moral Ambiguity and The Making of a POW
Inconsistent and convenient applications of the Geneva Conventions have been particularly highlighted in the delineation of prisoner of war (POW) status as it applies to terrorists. The Bush administration agreed that the Taliban were fighting for a state (Afghanistan), and as such would normally be accorded protections under the Geneva Conventions. However, they declared that both al Qaeda and Taliban fighters would, in fact, not be classified as POW’s. Because they deemed the war to be asymmetrical, they concluded they were not bound to the covenants regarding conventional war upon which the Conventions are drawn (Caseldine-Barcht, 2006, pp. 76,77). This accomplished a very important goal ...
... middle of paper ...
...Bibliography
Caseldine-Bracht, Jennifer. (2006, September). “Chapter 3: Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights: Finding a Balance.” Guantanamo Bay and the Judicial Treatment of Aliens. Purdue University Press.
Landau, Susan. (2013, July/August). “Making Sense from Snowden: What’s Significant in the NSA Surveillance Revelations.” Security & Privacy, IEEE. Volume 11, Issue, 4. Retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6573302
Lowenthal, Mark M. ((2012). Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. SAGE Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mascolo, Georg; Scott, Ben. (2013, October). “Lessons From the Summer of Snowden: The Hard Road Back to Trust.” The Wilson Center.
Snow, Donald. (2014). National Security for a New Era. Fifth Edition. Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
In her essay Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants, Jennifer Vanklausen explores the ethical question of our government’s policy to hold American citizens suspected of terrorist activity against the United States as enemy combatants, withholding their constitutional rights as provided in the fifth and sixth amendments, during an undeclared war.
Keck, Zachary. "Yes, Edward Snowden Is a Traitor." The Diplomat. N.p., 21 Dec. 2013. Web. 21 Feb. 2014
In May of 2013 Edward Snowden who was then working at a National Security Agency office in Oahu, Hawaii began copying top secret documents that belonged to the American government as he believed the documentation contained unethical and immoral content that he believed the American people and the world in general needed to know about. (Snowden, 2014) The documentation that he collated contained information regarding projects such as Prism, which is a top secret NSA surveillance program that has the ability to access the data servers of some of America's large...
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an authoritative order forcing governments to provide the “body” of the detainee in which the legality of their detention and individual liberties will be challenged. Historically associated with civil liberty violation and the injustice of illegally detaining potentially enemies of the state, jurisdictional issues regarding their detaining location have made justice difficult to administer and deliver. Detaining enemies for their participation, involvement, and/or ties to threats of terror towards the United States will result the confinement of combatants, as solidified by the US Constitution, however, to what extent will they be forced to stay?. Residents of Guantanamo Bay are just; enemies of the state, accused individual that have been arrested and detain with minimal civil human rights to our jurisdictional due process that we American’s hold dear; with only a Writ of Habeas Corpus as their life line to legality and freedom. Although controversial in its conception and implementation by US presidential administration, judiciary members have cordially interpreted cases of questionable detention and the legality of doing so. It is truly unfortunate when individuals are tossed into confinement illegally with no help and/or the promise of their restorative freedoms (ACLU, 2014).
The Bush Doctrine and the emerging National Security Strategy introduced by President Obama plays an essential part in strengthening the security of the United States. However, both policies could be argued because of personal belief, perception, and interpretation and in some cases opinions about each President. It’s necessary to look at each policy in both situations and apply them to the ongoing threat and the war on terrorism and understand how this affects National Security Strategies.
Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the extent of the N.S.A breaches of American privacy and in doing so, became ostracized by the media and barred from freely reentering America, his home country.
The concept of homeland security has developed over the last decade. Homeland security as a concept was precipitated by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. However, prior to 9/11 such entities as the Gilmore Commission and the United States Commission on National Security discussed the need to evolve the way national security policy was conceptualized due to the end of the Cold War and the rise of radicalized terrorism. After 9/11, policymakers concluded that a new approach was needed to address the large-scale terrorist attacks. A presidential council and department were established, and a series of presidential directives were issued in the name of “homeland security.” These developments established that homeland security was a distinct, but undefined
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
Sempa, Francis P. "Privacy, Technology and National Security." American Diplomacy (2013). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of a friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument. To give the full picture of Edward Snowden I must start with his role in the government. Edward Snowden never graduated from high school, nor did he graduate from community college (Yann 1). In 2003 he joined the U.S. Army briefly until he was discharged when he broke both his legs in a training accident (BBC 1).
Gonchar, Michael. “What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.