Homeland Security

Introduction

In the entire United States, civil liberties are the freedom of a citizen to exercise customary rights, as of speech or assembly, without unwarranted or arbitrary interference by the government. Such a right as guaranteed by the laws of a country, as in the U.S. by the Bill of Rights. The citizens of the United States are responsible for holding civil rights, which implies the privileges, immunities alongside the available rights that every American citizen has. They are responsible for political rights, which means the rights that target the individuals who are entitled to participate in the election processes either as voters or candidates. Civil liberties are freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution to protect us from tyranny or abuse of power by a government entity. The difference between civil liberties and security seems essential as every person may not be eligible to vote; however, they need to enjoy their freedom equally. It is not feasible since most civil rights are considered and incorporated to constitute all the political rights within the stage.

On the contrary, national security is described as the need for the country or a nation to ensure its survival is maintained using the military and Federal Law Enforcement. Besides the civil liberties refers to freedoms alongside rights which every person within the country are compelled to exercise guided by the legislation of the country together with its international laws. For instance, various rights and freedoms exist within the nation, such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression, among several freedoms in legislation. The rights preserved in the laws of the land including but not limited to, right to liberty and security, among others. After World War II, the security issues began to emerge within the United States, putting more emphasis on the Military and Federal Law Enforcement. Globally, security issues have become a national concern.

The security entails numerous sectors, including energy security, economic and environmental security alongside several others. Security threats are believed to range from the external states, whereas it incorporates organizations such as multi-national organizations and other terrorist groups. The concept of security liberty uses the constitution within the country to protect them. Various legislations that the government adopts are used for upholding civil liberties when they give effects to the international laws. The international legislation may be passed in the conventions, including international covenant as well as the political right. This paper will answer a significant question, “can civil rights and security co-exist with a balanced policy without eroding the other one?”

Literature review

It is the responsibility of the citizens of every nation to offer the best protection of civil rights. According to Hedrick (2018, p23), most civil liberties proceed to the extent of being subject to debate. Such privileges include reproductive rights, property rights, and many more. Several arguments have been conducted on whether it is essential or not for civil liberties to be infringed on in exchange for national security success. Most of the stakeholders believed that the infringement would facilitate the country's best level of civil freedom. Therefore, it is essential to ensure the correct balance of civil liberties. Their extent should be checked to determine whether the existing civil rights are subject to alteration or suspension according to the security of the nation's interests. It alerts for a better deal of care that can strike the best balance within the government.

Koppuzha (2016, p80) portrays a different ideology of civil libertarianism. The authors posit that with national security, and erosion of civil liberties will be experienced. Therefore, according to their statement, the worst mistake would be to ensure that freedom is given priority. Hence, it becomes a mistake concerning the history and background and the existing law with respect to striking the balance that both the civil freedoms as well as the national security. Depending on the current regulations, the deposit can be altered but in rare cases which can suit the time meant for them. During such times, they exist to ensure that most of the rights upheld similar rights as before.

In contrast, Pavone, Santiago Gomez & Jaquet-Chifelle (2016, p225) have a different opinion. He says that the response that the nation gives concerning the security threats has, on several occasions, infringed civil liberties. In the tandem of the supreme court of the United States recognizes that history records with evidence that here existing precisely documented tendency of the government though seem to be benevolent, its motives are benign to give an overview with lots of suspicion to the individuals disputing the policies. Therefore, the problem appears not to be unique to the entire United States; however, the structures arranged politically, constitutional structures as well as religious structures fail to offer protection to the systems of the rights of people.

Conversely, the government subverts the freedoms that are responsible for forming the defense that maintains the well-being of the nation. Nana & Ablamskiy (2020, 33) reflect on the misconceptions resulting from attempts to combat a terror that is practiced in the name of security meanwhile uphold valuable civil responsibilities. According to the authors' argument, the significance and meaning of civil rights have been altered. As a result, many misunderstandings emerge due to the available explanation of methods used to combat terrorism for improving security. The current notion of terrorism that exists posits that if an individual was on your side, the person becomes against you.

Thus, fear is installed on the individual infringing on fundamental rights such as movement expression, among others. Marginalizing together with curtailing the existing freedoms is ended by misinterpreting the security which is upheld. The residence that is engaged directly or indirectly with certain regions alongside the various groups is considered a threat to the nation. Besides, the FBI possesses reasonable powers and the best resources. Also, some of the jurisdictions that have overseas coverage.

Numerous criminal gangs well organized are penetrated and prosecuted in recent years. Also, they have uncovered public corruption as well as the effectiveness caught up with the attacks launched by the terrorists. FBI continues to curtail the primary association of freedoms such as speech. The human rights are infringed by the bureau while continuing to protect its security freedoms. The forces fail to be held responsible and accountable to the public incriminating depending on the association rather than focusing on the hard facts and evidence to have valid criminals. Anti-terrorism act (1996) and its adoption reflects on the positive sides of the injustices. It also reflects on the unrestricted investigations done by the bureau-based agendas of politics. The deliberate criminalization of the Act concerning the peaceful activity provided leverage to the FBI to engage in the various groupings such as the religious, ethnic alongside grouping themselves in the works regarded to be friendly and humanitarian. According to Carrera, Stefan, Cortinovis & Luk (2019, p11), since the beginning of the legal regime adopted during the era of President Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower and did the least insulted the history that the FBI made.

References

Hedrick, P. (2018). Civil Liberties and National Security: The Implications of the Debate for the United States Intelligence Community.

Koppuzha, A. (2016). Secrets and Security: Overclassification and Civil Liberty in Administrative National Security Decisions. Alb. L. Rev., 80, 501.

Pavone, V., Santiago Gomez, E., & Jaquet-Chifelle, D. O. (2016). A systemic approach to security: beyond the tradeoff between security and liberty. Democracy and Security, 12(4), 225-246.

Nana, C. N., & Ablamskiy, S. Y. (2020). Ensuring the right to liberty and security of person in Ukraine and Cameroon: a comparative analysis in the area of criminal justice.

Carrera, S., Stefan, M., Cortinovis, R., & Luk, N. C. (2019). When mobility is not a choice, Problematising asylum seekers' secondary movements and their criminalisation in the EU. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 2019-11, December 2019.