Suspending Civil Rights Is Not the Answer Against Terrorism, Research Paper Example

Since the tragedy of September 11, US Congress has initiated legislation to combat terrorism. The President of the country gave orders to military tribunals to try out certain accused terrorists. Concurrently with that, the Department of Justice has passed on the regulations on interviews, detentions and surveillance. Such measures that affect non-citizens who in the past obtained the most of Constitution’s protection and rights, create vital civil liberties problems nowadays.

The word “terrorism” “originated in the French Revolution, when the government instituted the “Reign of Terror” to execute political opponents, seize their property, and terrorize the rest of the population into submission.” (Kopel, 15) Many governments worldwide after the events of September 11 are now reviewing their security procedures and rights in an attempt to minimize the risk of similar things happening again and in order to help fight against terrorism.

The hijackers have shown the world that a group of carefully organized and determined individuals can carry on destructive terrorist attacks. The world security and intelligence agencies are now doing their best to prevent such tragedies. Therefore, revising one’s country’s laws seems logical. But the question remains: what is the best way to fight terrorism? And is the suspension of the civil rights the best response?

The attacks on the US were seen as the attacks on vital western civilization values, open society, civil rights as well as democracy in general. Important chance in legislation, suspension of civil liberties and rights as well as the declaration of the permanent state of emergency nowadays modify and remodel the foundation of the political community. What it means is that the country’s defense means have become the very instrument of the attacker. Essential points and breaches within the international order appeared due to the state’s inability to properly respond to the global threat. They concurrently serve as the emptiness warning of the concept of man’s rights outside of those of the citizen.

“The Patriot Act that appeared shortly after September 11” is controversial in the opinions of many. (Stevens, 21) Majority of people agree that proposals inside the Act that do not pose fundamental threat are acceptable and do not violate civil rights. For example, increased information sharing between the law enforcement agencies as well as intelligence agencies inside and outside the country are necessary. The proposal that initially put on terrorist list those who commit such wrongdoings as possessing a gun or computer crimes, are now more specifically explained that until those individuals affect or influence government by coercion or intimidation, they are off the hook.

However, those particular proposals that put a threat on our every day personal rights and liberties as well as our property get a red light from citizens.  The proposal that deals with the internet message tracking is already a controversial one. If agencies are able to provide a guarantee that they intercept only tracing information without reading the whole message, then it’s fine. But once it involves more intervention into the personal privacy, people object. Provisions that enforce agencies’ wish to expand forfeiture powers are limiting personal rights. People believe that there is no reason to seize assets in order to prevent somebody from leaving jurisdiction area. In attempt to plant evidence over and over agencies can seize somebody’s yacht or car and this is unacceptable at all.

One of the biggest concerns of people is whether the surveillance laws can influence who we are and how we are accustomed to act. It is not like citizens have something to hide. However, if the monitoring and watching over the people will continue, it can change the society. Many people agree that the government must not change the laws but carry on a better execution of the existing legislation and powers.

Civil liberties and rights are designed by law individual rights that provide legal shields to protect citizens from the abuses of the government. “Rights are a social construct, a product of history, of ideas and of institutions.”(Prospect Magazine) At the times of war in the US occurred several situations that provided a reason for the US government to give the national security a priority concern while limiting civil liberties. However, the importance concern remains that no matter innovations in the system, there should always exist a strong balance between people’s rights and the national security. After President Bush signed the Patriot Act more than 1100 non-citizens, who are of Middle East or South Asian origin, were detained for months. Moreover, the authorities did not provide any information on who those people were and why they were imprisoned. “A U.S. watch list of terrorism suspects has passed 1 million records, corresponding to about 400,000 people, and a leading civil rights group said on Monday the number was far too high to be effective.” (Reuters)

Therefore, the main concern of citizens is that during the times of terrorist attacks people themselves become the main reason of the problem. “The issue of terrorism and human rights has become more urgent with the global surge in terrorism.” (UN Chronicle) Legislation system that exists is a powerful tool to fight and solve national security problems. However, due to the lack of its proper implementation, citizens have to suffer and be limited in their everyday civil rights. By minimizing civil rights or suspending them, there is no clear guarantee that the fight with terrorism will reach its end. The question remains: why should the citizens suffer if enemy most of the time comes from abroad?

References

Dear, R. “Human Rights and Terrorism: The Human Rights Act is a welcome constraint on government. But can it threaten our ability to fight terrorism?” Prospect Magazine. 9 August 2005 http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ 2005/09/humanrightsandterrorism/

Kopel, D. B., Olson, J. “Preventing a reign of terror: civil liberties implications of terrorism legislation.” Oklahoma City University Law Review (1996): 15

Mikkelsen, R. “U.S. terrorism watch list tops 1 million.” Reuters. 14 July 2008 http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1447675120080714

Palti, L. “Combating Terrorism While Protecting Human Rights.” UN Chronicle Online Edition. http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/issue4/0404p27.html

Stevens P., Bogle, T.C. “Patriotic Acts: Financial Institutions, Money Laundering and the War Against Terrorism.” (2002): 21