Homeland Security and Civil Liberties
Extra Credit Report: Unit 17
December 13, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Question One- What tensions exist between governmental power and civil liberties? Question Two- Use a metaphor to describe a zero-sum game of balancing governmental power, security, and individual’s rights.
Question 3-How does the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 and its renewal in 2006 increase executive authority.
Question 4- Describe how the changes made the 2006 compromise between Congress and The White House.
Question 5- What are the arguments for increased executive power?
Question 6- Compare the arguments against such power.
Question 7- How has the courts reacted to the arguments
Question 8- Should law enforcement be militarized to prevent terrorism?
Bibliography …………………..Final Page
We are told by our leaders that there are trade-offs when considering our security; that in order to create a secure America we must give up some freedoms and rules of our democracy for the protection of all. Homeland security involves many factors it does decrease civil liberties and individual freedoms and it totally increases governmental power; a thing ends its impossible to construct a counterterrorist system that ensures complete protection, allows for maximum civil liberty, and protects unrestricted freedoms of movement matter of fact the government is sacrificing some of its own branches to place more authority within one for each, the executive branch (White, Jonathan, 2006). Nothing centralizes power like war. Whether faced with a threat real or manufactured, it seems that people sink into a mind-less situation agreeing to anything. When the emperor of Rome burned the city in effort to persecute Christians, he gained control of the population; we did not learn. When, Hitler burned the Reichstag shortly after elected, he blamed the destruction of this government building on his political enemies; however, it only creating fear amongst the population. Hitler, who was a fascist used fear so the people would willingly lay down their republic; Hitler then reached his position or Reich, the Third Reich. In addition, Hitler was not constrained by habeas corpus so was able to declare “millions of people enemies" and send them off to death camps (Osterburg W. James & Ward H. Richard 2007). Habeas corpus is the legal principle that is the foundation of freedom; it prevents the government from picking up a person and holding him/her indefinitely without charge (Osterburg W. James & Ward H. Richard, 2007). The Bush administration abolished; habeas corpus in 2004, believing it is a luxury the U.S. cannot afford. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act came, and struck these two provisions in 2006; however re-defined “enemy combat” thereby, almost accomplishing the same goal of the original bill. As it stands currently, the U.S. government decides just as Hitler did, if you fall under the label of enemy, thereby having no rights (Senate Congressional Record, 2006). Seems to me like Americans are not looking back to realize; when freedom is lost, it is lost forever (Kime, A.O., 2008). After September 11 the government started to strengthen the security of the United States. By doing this they adopted The US Patriot Act I, which was authored by a communist named Viet Dinh. I’m bothered by, not the fact who wrote the Patriot Act but the fact, not one of our 435 House of Representatives read the U.S. Patriot Act I, prior to signing it. To me it simply looks like a blueprint /pretense for civil liberties and freedoms being taken away, not my security. The United States has 27 amendments within the Constitution. The first 10 is our Bill of Rights. If we don't think the US patriot act I should cause would cause concern possibly the patriot act II, would make citizens react. Through the Patriot Act I, backed by the Patriot Act II, our Bills of Rights are...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document