The Civil Liberty versus Homeland Security

This article examines the balance between civil liberties and national security in the United States, focusing on the impact of policies on individual privacy and rights. It discusses the USA Patriot Act, surveillance techniques, data mining, and the erosion of due process and rights to counsel. The role of the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) offices in advocating for individual liberties and equal treatment is also explored.

The civil liberty versus homeland security
Name
Institution
Professor
Course
Date

The security of the United States of America (USA) remains a fundamental aspect since
the September 11, 2001, attack. After the attack, it was agreed that the restriction of freedom was
necessary. The main goal was to not to deny civil liberties but to enhance national security by
preventing their abuse. The most important aspect was to have civil liberties as national strength
rather than weakness. As a result, Congress has been enacting policies which perceive any form
of freedom as weakness and failing to have a balance between law enforcement and human
rights (Finkelstein et al., 2017). To strike the balance between civil liberties and national security
both national values and constitutional laws should be the foundation of security. Despite having
strict laws on national security, it is important to advocate for a world with equal human rights
which are enjoyed by all people. In this regard, civil rights and liberties office offers full support
to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to secure the nation. On the same note, law
enforcement agencies advocate the preservation of fairness, equity and civil liberty.
National security has been expanded through the use of USA patriotic act which focuses
on individual privacy, First Amendment and Surveillance. Under the law, the patriotic act
permits authorities to use any surveillance technique to extract useful information. The law
allows both National Security Agency (NSA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to
conduct any form of surveillance, “sneak and peak” security search to unearth crucial
information (Finkelstein et al., 2017). To enhance investigations processes, law enforcement
agencies have proposed the use of data mining tools. The tools are meant to facilitate the
collection of any crucial information on all citizens. Some of the sensitive information collected
include; bank transactions and withdrawals, telephone conversations, travel data, and medical
records. On the same note, “operation TIPS” is a policy which mandates ordinary citizen to
provide crucial information to investigating agencies about suspicious neighbors. Some of the

proposals undermine individual privacy rights and might not offer any substantial benefits on
law enforcement. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) introduced new policies with civil
liberties which apply on non-Americans (Davis & Silver, 2004). Since 9th 11 attacks, the justice
department started secret imprisonment targeting non-Americans from the Middle East. Mosque
counting as an investigative technique by FBI are meant to propagate an illusion that all Muslims
should be treated as suspects. Most of the laws and policies are meant to enhance security
without giving due consideration to civil liberties. Changes in national security laws present
dangers on freedom of association and expression which are crucial pillars of democracy.
Erosion of due process and rights to counsel has been initiated to both citizen and non-
Americans. Instead of moderating judicial process, the state government has adopted preventive
detention and use of secretive evidence which against civil liberties. Government has adopted
some compelling reasons to justify a closed hearing on very minor circumstances (Sagar, 2009).
Though there some instances where closed hearing is warranted, due process should be followed
to safeguard and protect civil liberties. Military tribunal processes adopted by the military during
President Bush tenure raised serious concerns on judicial due process. It is worthy to note that
the adoption of such provisions on the judicial process is against the Geneva Convention.
Another concern was raised was on terrorism suspects being treated are treated as “enemy
combatants” with no rights to access counsel, detain them indefinitely and not to allow an
appeal. Due to the lack of transparency in terrorism prosecution, many immigrants have been
held without any charges being preferred on them. This demonstrates a violation of due judicial
process which is imposed on a technical violation of immigration rules (De-Hert, 2005). State
government upholds its powers to detain and effectively prosecute terrorists. However, there is a

need to observe suspect's privacy and make sure due judicial processes are not compromised for
the sake of national security.
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) offices have been advocating protection of
individual liberties and equal treatment as enriched in the constitution. The CRCL has been
championing the implementation of rules that gives it powers to be part of the law enforcement
agencies (Neocleous, 2007). It also seeks to have operational independence within the DHS
decision making. As a result, CRCL has been granted powers by the state government to advise
on policy review and carry out information assessment in regard to violation of civil rights. This
helps state government and law enforcement agencies to comply with constitutional
requirements. As an investigative body which operates outside complaints on civil rights
violations, it is required to coordinate with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The
CRCL offices should make sure there is substantial privacy protection. After the 9th attack, State
government implemented torture policies which targeted killing, detention without trial, religious
discrimination and mass surveillance. Such policies violated the law and eroded most of the USA
cherished values (Davis, 2003). Currently, such policies are not constitutionally allowed but
targeted killings, religion seclusion, and unwarranted surveillance are some of the state
governments' national security strategies. Important to note is that through CRCL offices, it has
been possible to bring together amnesty supporters advocating for a fair world to live.
To be able to combat terrorism and uphold civil liberties, there is a need to investigate,
prevent and prosecute according to the law. Disclosure of information and state government
policies on terrorism should remain a valuable aspect in the state’s democracy. If there is need to
invalidate individual privacy protection, there should be a substantial need to warrant privacy
violation. To enhance national security, investigative agencies can make use of new technologies

to extract data and for surveillance when deemed necessary. Maintaining a strong focus on
privacy rights should be enforced by all stakeholders by opposing state government directives to
undermine freedom of expression and civil liberties. There is a need to champion for prosecution
processes to follow the due process and provide access to counsel. CRCL offices believe state
government should be stopped from use of unconstitutional means to institute the criminal
proceeding. There is a need to secure America and the civil rights and liberties on few people
cannot be used to endanger the nation. In this regard, I concur with the state government on use
available means and tools to make sure national security remains a priority.

References
Davis, D. W., & Silver, B. D. (2004). Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of
the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 28-46.
Davis, R. N. (2003). Striking the Balance: National Security vs. Civil Liberties. Brook. J. Int'l
L., 1(29), 175.
De-Hert, P. (2005). Balancing security and liberty within the European human rights framework.
A critical reading of the Court's case law in the light of surveillance and criminal law
enforcement strategies after 9/11. Utrecht L. Rev., 1(1), 68.
Finkelstein, E. A., Mansfield, C., Wood, D., Rowe, B., Chay, J., & Ozdemir, S. (2017). A trade-
off between civil liberties and national security: a discrete choice experiment. Contemporary
economic policy, 35(2), 292-311.
Neocleous, M. (2007). Security, liberty and the myth of balance: Towards a critique of security
politics. Contemporary Political Theory, 6(2), 131-149.
Sagar, R. (2009). Who holds the balance? A missing detail in the debate over balancing security
and liberty. Polity, 41(2), 166-188.