The Civil Liberty versus Homeland Security

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