Rights versus Restriction

     We are privileged to live in a free and open society.  We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  However, since 9/11, our way of life has changed.  Terrorism has infringed upon our rights. So, how should the government prosecute the war on terrorism?  Essentially, it all boils down to the delicate balance of Rights versus Restriction in the pursuit of a counter terrorism strategy.

     What does terrorism do?  In broad terms it paints fear among the population.  It begins with a heinous act that is so horrible and violent, that it creates fear, panic and a feeling of insecurity (Messelken, 2005).  Think of the history of the beginning of the Second World War when the Japanese bombed the island naval base of Pearl Harbor.  Reports of the event were slow in arriving on the east coast and many were not accurate.  During 9/11 television coverage portrayed the event in vivid color driving the enormity of the tragedy and fear into the hearts of the American people.  We saw firsthand the images of planes crashing into the Twin Towers causing them to crumble and subsequently crash to the ground.  We saw these images over and over again.  Later, the evening news channels showed viewers pictures of people, falling to their deaths.  This act immediately removes, in some cases, our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Terrorism dismantles our democratic society and causes it to lapse into a state similar to the Middle East where fear and destruction are common place.  Therefore, to reinstall these rights how does the government implement a counter terrorism operation? 

      One school of thought is to use the full measure of the military.  Further terrorists do not retain any right to due process (Wilkinson, 2006).  Yet others contradict this idea by stating that the prosecution of this War on Terrorism does not mean giving up our principles of democracy to pursue a foe. 

The response of the government was to create the Unit and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or better known to most as the Patriot Act (The USA Patriot Act, n.d.).  The Patriot Act changed the way we now board aircraft, established the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration and database that includes citizens and visitors to the United States (Manning 2006).  

     Many believe the restrictions that were put in place should treat everyone the same. Terrorists should not be placed in a separate suspect category and treated differently under the guidance of the law.  Further, the Patriot Act must demonstrate that it is differentiating suspects as terrorists and only apply the necessary restrictions for the security of the nation (Dworkin, 2011).  However, if you read the Patriot Act and its provisions you have a difficult time believing that our 1^st and 4^th Amendment rights are being preserved (Yannick, 2013).

Another school of thought is that risk is the unit of measure that determines the amount of liberty we receive in comparison to the security that we need.  If the risk is there, the deprivation of liberty is justified for our security.  But, if it is an overreaction by the government then depriving our rights is ethically wrong.  How does one determine if the government is over reacting?  The common citizen doesn’t have the intricate knowledge that the government has in identifying threats against the country (Freeman, 2005). 

     It could also be said that it is the moral and ethical responsibility of the government to ensure certain measures are in place to preserve our safety even though some of those measures could in fact be an infringement on our rights (Teson, 2005).  Yet, Ignatieff (2004) provides that the restrictions should be scrutinized by the media, legislators and the court systems.  

     In short, life changed with the attack on 9/11.  The government has the ethical responsibility to adopt measures to protect the country from terrorist attacks.  However, the debate continues over what measures are too much.  The public is not privileged to know what threats are made against the country and must rely on the best judgment of the government to take the necessary measures to ensure our safety.   But does this mean that we forfeit or relinquish some of our rights that our fore fathers provided for us?  Do we believe that the Patriot Act is there for our protection or simply an overreaction by the government? 

 

References

Department of Justice (n.d.) The USA Patriot Act: Preserving Life and Liberty.  Retrieved from

            http://www.justice.gov/archive/II/highlights.htm

Dworkin, R. (2006). Is Democracy Possible Here? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Freeman, M. (2005). “ Order, Rights and Threats: Terrorism and Global Justice.” Pp. 37-56 in

            Human Rights in the “War on Terror,” edited by Richard Wilson, Cambridge, England: 

            Cambridge University Press. 

Ignatieff, M. (2004). The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror: The Gifford Lectures. 

            Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Manning, P. (2006). “Refelction on Risk Analysis, Screening, and Contested Rationalities.”

            Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48: 453-469  
Messelken, D. (2005). “Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare – a Comparative Essay.”  Pp. 51-68 in

            Ethics of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism, edited by George Meggle.  Frankfurt,

            Germany: Ontos.

 Teson, F. (2005).  “Liberal Secruity.” Pp. 57-77 in Human Rights in the “War on Terror,”

            edited by Richard Wilson, Cambridge, England:  Cambridge University Press.

Yannick, L. (2013) How the NSA’s XKeyscore Programming Works

            Retrieved from: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/how-nsas-

            xkeyscore-program-works-6C10812168

Wilkinson, P. (2006).  Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response (2^nd ed.)

            London: Routledge