National security Essay

by and by the occurrence of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a law, the PATRIOT procedure. The PATRIOT Act made it easier for the law enforcement officials to use certain(a) techniques such as wiretapping and other watch technologies to aid in the war furthermoste against act of terrorism. The reason why this topic needs to be addressed is laid in the following quote The prob great power that mickle ar terrorists precondition that NSAs system of surveillance identifies them as terrorists is only p=0.2308, which is off the beaten track(predicate) from one and well below flipping a coin. NSAs National Security authorisations domestic observe of every(prenominal)ones email and phone c all tolds is useless for purpose terrorists(Rudmin, Alston P29). M some(prenominal) people argue that the administration has gone too far with allowing violations of the Bill of Rights in the name of protect the country from terrorists. Although so me people argue that the political science should use all doer to fight against terrorism, the government should not be engaged in the surveillance of their citizens in the interests of internal security because people expect privacy in their communications, travel and own(prenominal) records and activities.Some people argue that the government should use all means to fight against terrorism. Alexander Hamilton, one of our nations founding fathers, believed that the government needed to go through up a free hand in protecting the people. The bureau to protect the nation ought to exist without limitation, it is impossible to foresee or define the ext finish and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent tip and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them (Yoo P7). Hamilton believed that the presidents power to protect the nation as commander in chief should not be limited. Many people and even parts of the government have adopted a slogan meant to ea se worries over surveillance. If youve got secret code to hide, youve got nothing to fear (Solove P4). The intent of this is that you should not be afraid of the government examining every aspect of your life if you have done nothing wrong in the first place. The arguments presented to support unlimited government powers of surveillance lend themselves to the end justifying any means.Many believe the trump way to fight terrorism is to monitor everything passing through communications channels regardless of the tooth root or destination. The best way to find an al Qaeda operative is to look at all email, text and phone traffic amongst Afghanistan and Pakistan and the U.S. This might involve the filtering of innocent traffic, just as roadblocks and airport screenings do (Yoo P5). In 2008, The United States Senate determined to do just that. The comfort the States Act (PAA) expanded upon the FISA Act of 1978 (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act) to allow more(prenominal) than flexibility in monitoring internal communication for intelligence purposes. The Protect the States Act substantially changes the intent and protections entangled in the genuine FISA Act. The FISA Act was trustworthyly passed to prevent abuse, not allow for more of it final result that the Protect America Act is intended to reduce the susceptibility of the original FISA legislation to preclude abuse (Alston P35).The PAA allows for monitoring of communications without judicial undertake within the United States. The PAA also allows government agencies to compel telecommunications companies to provide main course and information while at the same time protecting them from pursuance for violating privacy laws. Failure to obey an order of the FISA Court may be punished as a contempt of court (Alston P11). The Act compels an attain and simultaneously removes all responsibility for that action (Alston P13). The FISA Court is not a judicial court, and meets in secrecy. Communicatio ns within the United States send away at a time be monitored at the direction of a secret court without perplexity from judicial courts and without recourse from those being monitored. Since the government wanted to inhibit the ability of terrorists to attack using commercial aircraft, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) added impertinently airport security measures.The terrorist attacks resulted in many cases of racial and ethnic profiling. The victims of these accusations were more often than not of a Middle Eastern descent. These people were subject to searches and interrogations, often without likely cause (ProQuest P1). In order to avoid claims of profiling, airport security checks include whole-body imagers, full pat-downs, and other screening measures for all travelers. Some of these measures violate the rightfulness to be secure in our person, while not necessarily up(p) safety. Yet screeners routinely fail to discern the guns, knives, and other contraband their monitors launch the distractions of whole-body imaging are considerably greater than anything in the average carry-on (Akers P3). These freshly security measures do not inherently make our transportation more secure, and the distractions caused by some may actually make them less secure. In addition, these systems themselves may not be secure or exactly what they are represented to be.The TSA has long denied that its gadgets retain the pictures they snap of us have naught storage efficiency, so the images cannot be stored transmitted or printed (Kudwa). We roll in the hay from the website of one of the vendors that these machines can hence store images (Rotenberg). Indeed, images from these systems were subsequently published on the Internet, leading many to question the honesty of the TSA representatives and their vendors. While the government does indeed need to be able to protect the nation, they should do so without violating inbuilt rights. Amendment 4 of the Con stitution provides that, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, an no reasserts issued, but upon probable cause, back up by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (US Constitution, A4).This basic guaranteed right is violated by intelligence monitoring of personal communications of citizens within the United States borders without a warrant. The PATRIOT Act also allows for search and seizure of private records without a judicial warrant under specific rules. An FBI agent came to my office and handed me a letter. It demanded that I turn over information about one of my clients and forbade me from telling any person that the government had approached me National security letters are issued by the FBI, not a judge, to obtain information (Merrill P1-2). This information is especially important since i nternal Justice Department investigations have found widespread violations of NSL rules by the FBI (Merrill P7). This statement reveals that governmental agencies are pursuing private, protected information without obtaining a judicial warrant, hiding their actions behind gag orders with threats of imprisonment, and violating PATRIOT Act render for National Security Letters. The books Matched and Crossed, by Ally Condie, in many ship canal mirror what is happening in our country today with the use of surveillance of citizens by government.In the books, all personal communication, spoken or written, is monitored by Officials. These Officials are responsible for monitoring the morals and directing the future of their society. These Officials are similar to the many government agencies using surveillance to monitor the quotidian lives of citizens for counter-terrorist purposes. Every facet of daily life is monitored by the Officials and perceived error subjects a citizen to social s tatus change and removal from society. In America today, anyone can be searched without probable cause, and to be even suspected as a terrorist or sympathizer can result in imprisonment. In an even greater invasion of privacy, the Officials in the books monitor the very dreams of their citizens. We can only hope medical technology does not grant this capability to our government.Although some people argue that the government should fight terrorism with all methods, the government should not be violating the Bill of Rights. Government agencies, mostly work in secret and immune from warrants and judicial review, have been granted the ability to violate rights of citizens guaranteed by the Constitution in order to ensure our safety. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little jury-rigged Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety (Benjamin Franklin). United States citizens do not need to relinquish our freedom or rights for safety against terrorists. Perhaps the be st way to ensure that the act remains faithful to fundamental American values is to insist on greater transparency and oversight (Sales P17). The government should work to protect us from terrorists and other threats, but can do so without violating the rights of citizens granted by the Constitution.Works CitedAkers, Becky. Whole-Body Imaging Intrusion Without Security. freeman Vol. 60, No. 4 May 2010 n. pag. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. . Condie, Ally. Crossed. New York Dutton Books, 2011. Print. -. Matched. New York Dutton Books, 2010. Print.Merrill, Nicholas. The patriot Acts War on Free Speech. Washington adventure 26 Oct. 2011 A. 19. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. ProQuest Staff. At Issue National Security and Privacy. ProQuest LLC. SIRS Issues Researcher, 2011. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. . Sales, Nathan A. The Patriot Act Isnt Broken. Christian Science Monitor 6 Mar. 2009 n. pag. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. . Solove, Daniel J. Why Privasy Mette r Even if You Have Nothing to Hide. Chronicle of higher(prenominal) Education 15 May 2011 n. pag. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. Yoo, John. Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretraps. Wall channel Journal 16 July 2009 A. 13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 5 Dec. 2011. .