The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on US soil revealed the vulnerability of the United States to terrorist attacks. After the attacks, the United States had to lay emphasis on the protection of the homeland security. The department of homeland security was created to protect the nations from such terrorism incidences and other dictators. Since its inceptions this department and the various security agencies have resorted to various means in order to achieve their goals of protecting the US. Some of these means and approaches appear to undermine civil liberties and fundamental human rights for various individuals.
This paper will discuss the affects this department has had on people’s civil liberty.Homeland security is a security body that is charged with the responsibility of reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism and natural disasters (Chertoff, 2009). This body was established to protect American nation and its infrastructure from dangers posed by people and materials while at the same time mitigating effects of disasters by strengthening the nation’s emergency preparedness and response systems. Civil liberties on the other hand, refer to fundamental human rights such as; freedom of speech, freedom of association, right to a fair trial and freedom of religion among others (Chertoff, 2009).
Civil liberties address the questions as to what extent should the government involve itself in or control people’s private lives.Formation of homeland security was an ideal strategy for combating terrorism and enhancing preparedness and efficient responses to disasters. The idea behind the formation of this umbrella security body was to enhance corporation and intelligence sharing among various agencies responsible for providing security services (Thornburg, 2005). To enable this corporation between the security agencies, a bill that would remove barriers between agencies was legislated.
This bill which is referred to as the USA PATRIOTIC Act bill received massive support in both the upper and lower chambers. However, this bill also introduced other aspects that have given the department of homeland security the power to limit individual’s civil liberties. The formation of the department of Homeland security and the subsequent legislation of the USA PATRIOTIC Act drove into conflict the government authority and will to fight terrorism and the principles of civil liberty which the US has strongly advocated for.First of all, enactment of the USA PATRIOTIC bill into law gave the department of homeland security the powers to detain aliens without a hearing if found that they pose a threat to national security (Thornburg, 2005).
This is a clear violation of the covenant of civil liberties which guarantee every human being the right to a fair trial before being detained. Though many have argued that the bill only give the agencies rights to detain illegal aliens, the civil rights apply to all human being and are protected under the United Nations laws and each state aught to respect them. This issue elicited a lot of reaction especially after the establishment of the Guantamo Bay prison facility in Cuba to hold terrorism suspects. Aliens who are suspected to have links with terrorist groups or of having participated in terrorism activities are arrested and taken to this detainment faculty.
The department of homeland security has attempted to justify the holding of suspects by stating that releasing an innocent man was small upside as compared to the downside of releasing the wrong man who would later return to terrorism activities. The Department of Homeland security has also gave the argument that, the Geneva Convention that gave rise to the human rights and humanitarian laws does not apply in the case of terrorism (Butler, 2009)Homeland security has also been accused of infringement on people’s civil rights by facilitating unjust treatment of terrorism suspects.
Evidences have linked agencies under the department of homeland security and the Guantanamo Bay facility to the use of unconventional method in obtaining information from terrorism suspects and detainees (Butler, 2009). Some sources report incidence of torture while other have reported use of threats. Apart from having ratified the United Nations covenant on Civil Rights, the United States is also a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. This convention prohibits use of torture both on criminal suspects and those already convicted.
If what has been documented about Guantanamo Bay facility is anywhere near the truth, then the United States department of homeland security would one of the biggest violator of civil liberties.The USA PATRIOTIC act also calls for deportation of alien associated with or endorsing a terrorist organization (Thornburg, 2005). This provision in the acts has in some way discriminated against some groups in the society. Religious and race profiling has become a common practice in the fight against terrorism. Terrorism has been associated with Islamic religion and the Arab race.
Many people of Arab origin and those professing the Islamic faith have found themselves on the wrong side of the security agencies under the department of homeland security simply because their religious or race profile matches with what is associated with terrorism. This has instilled fear among people from these cultural backgrounds therefore curtailing their freedom of association.The civil liberty covenant also guarantees each and every citizen of the world rights to privacy and freedom from government’s interferences in private life (Whitehead & Aden, 2002).
The USA PATRIOTIC Act also amends the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) and gives its agencies, the authority to issue search warrants and wiretaps without reasonable cause of criminal conduct. In its previous state, the FISA act had limited the discretion of security agencies to issue search warrants or install wiretaps on individuals especially those of foreign origin. Strong evidence linking the target for the search warrant or wiretap to a crime was required to allow the issuing of these warrants.
The USA PATRIOTIC Act altered the FISA Act giving the United States security agencies the discretion to issue search and wiretap warrants without having to prove the target’s connection to a crime or terrorism act. Search and wiretap warrants give security agency the power to search through people’s properties and to monitor their communication in order to gather security and intelligence formation. This brings out another one of homeland security’s founding principle that communicates the idea that, when it comes to surveillance and security, civil liberties will have to take a back seat.Another fundamental civil liberty that homeland security has attempted to curtail is the freedom of speech (Whitehead & Aden, 2002).
Homeland security drew a connection between speech and terrorism and drafted some bills that would see interference with freedom of speech. Such bills included; the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 and the Megan Meier Cyber-bullying Prevention Act. The former act give power to local, states and other law enforcement agencies to prosecute any crime that is believed to have been motivated by prejudices based on religion, nationality, color, sexual orientation, gender and race. The later act give state organs the power to impose fines and jail term of up to 2 years to a person found to have caused substantial emotional distress via media outlets (email, facebook, twitter) through hostile speech.
This has the implication that a person’s religious, political or other points of view may be used to implicate that person in a hate crime.While evaluating some the argument presented above, it is easy to draw a conclusion that; the need to enhance homeland security has served to reduce some individual liberties and freedoms. Though many have opposed this measures that reduce the civil liberties in order to enhance security, there are proponent who feel that this measures are necessary for ensuring national security and safety. Many of the proponents have argued that, though individual liberties are important they do not operate in a vacuum.
It is also important to ensure that our cities, airports, roads and other places are safe so that each and every person can enjoy his freedom (Archick, 2006). These Proponents of the USA Patriotic Act and home land security have argued that with the global security situation changing rapidly putting individual liberties before everything else would leave the US vulnerable to terrorism.In conclusion, incidents of terrorism and terrorist attack have grown in significant during recent years.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US revealed that every country is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Since then, different countries have adopted different policies and measures that would improve the security of their homelands and reduce their vulnerability to attacks. Among the United States strategies was the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. Establishment and enforcement of the operation of this department have bore fruits in fighting terrorism attack but in the process sacrificed some civil liberties.
References
Archick K. (2006). European Approaches to Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Congressional Research Services. Retrieved on March 26, 2011, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33573.pdf
Butler C. (2009). Guantanmo Bay and the Judicial-Moral Treatment of the Other. Indiana, Purdue University Press
Chertoff M. (2009). Homeland Security: Assessing the First Five Years. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press
Thornburg D. (2005). Balancing Civil Liberties and Homeland Security: Does The USA Patriotic Act Avoid Justice, Robert H. Jackson’s “Suicide Pact”? Albany Law Review, 68, retrieved on March 26, 2011, from http://www.albanylawreview.org/articles/Thornburgh%28final%29.pdf
Whitehead J & Aden S (2002). Forfeiting “Enduring Freedom” for “Homeland Security”: A Constitutional Analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Initiatives. American University Law Review, 51 (6), 1081- 1133
