Maintaining National Security Without Eroding Civil Liberties
MAINTAINING NATIONAL SECURITY WITHOUT ERODING CIVIL LIBERTIES
Political Science 100 - D4
Professor: Logan Masilamani
Teacher Assistant: Serdar Kaya
July 26, 2011
Maintaining National Security without Eroding Civil Liberties Since 9/11, terrorism and the threat of terrorism have become a fact of life for all citizens of developed countries. No one is immune to terrorism; the word, alone, carries a negative connotation that can strike fear in the hearts and minds of the people subjected to its wrath. The concept of terrorizing individuals or groups of individuals by the use of force in order to achieve a political goal is nothing new and has been around since mankind has engaged in disputes and armed conflicts. According to Professor Gerard Chaliand and Arnaud Blin (2007, p. 3), experts in asymmetric conflicts, terrorism existed as early as 70 C.E when a Jewish zealots sect called Sicarii used terrorism "to cite an uprising against the Roman occupation." Very little has changed since then; terrorism is alive and well. In fact, Britain "have waged a prolonged, low-key, yet deadly struggle against both international and domestic terrorism for 30 years" (Cuthbertson, 2002, p. 27). As a result of the imminent threat of terrorism, in 1974, the British parliament introduced its first anti-terrorism legislation, Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA); PTA "permitted police to arrest, detain, and conduct search-and-seizure raids against suspected terrorists without a warrant" (Cuthbertson, 2002, p. 27). In essence, the British government passed a legislation that undermined the fundamental ideals which democratic societies like itself were built upon. Following the aftermath of 9/11, in order to prevent and deter further terrorists attacks, America passed its own anti-terrorism act called the "USA Patriot Act." The power that the PTA provided to British law enforcement agency is pale in comparison to the USA Patriot Act. Thus this essay will focus on the questions
Political Science 100 - D4
Professor: Logan Masilamani
Teacher Assistant: Serdar Kaya
July 26, 2011
Maintaining National Security without Eroding Civil Liberties Since 9/11, terrorism and the threat of terrorism have become a fact of life for all citizens of developed countries. No one is immune to terrorism; the word, alone, carries a negative connotation that can strike fear in the hearts and minds of the people subjected to its wrath. The concept of terrorizing individuals or groups of individuals by the use of force in order to achieve a political goal is nothing new and has been around since mankind has engaged in disputes and armed conflicts. According to Professor Gerard Chaliand and Arnaud Blin (2007, p. 3), experts in asymmetric conflicts, terrorism existed as early as 70 C.E when a Jewish zealots sect called Sicarii used terrorism "to cite an uprising against the Roman occupation." Very little has changed since then; terrorism is alive and well. In fact, Britain "have waged a prolonged, low-key, yet deadly struggle against both international and domestic terrorism for 30 years" (Cuthbertson, 2002, p. 27). As a result of the imminent threat of terrorism, in 1974, the British parliament introduced its first anti-terrorism legislation, Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA); PTA "permitted police to arrest, detain, and conduct search-and-seizure raids against suspected terrorists without a warrant" (Cuthbertson, 2002, p. 27). In essence, the British government passed a legislation that undermined the fundamental ideals which democratic societies like itself were built upon. Following the aftermath of 9/11, in order to prevent and deter further terrorists attacks, America passed its own anti-terrorism act called the "USA Patriot Act." The power that the PTA provided to British law enforcement agency is pale in comparison to the USA Patriot Act. Thus this essay will focus on the questions
Bibliography: Anonymous. (2008). No Torture. No Exceptions. The Washington Monthly, 40(1-3). Baker, N. V. (2003). National Security versus Civil Liberties. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 547-567. Brownfeld, P. (2003). Patriot Act Opponents Say Law Endangers Rights. from Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97003,00.html Chaliand, G., Blin, A., Schneider, E Cole, D. (2003). Patriot Act 's big brother. The Nation, 276(10). Cole, D. (2002). Enemy aliens and American freedoms. The Nation, 275(9). Cuthbertson, I. (2007). Whittling Liberties: Britain 's Not-So-Temporary Antiterrorism Laws. World Policy Journal, 18(4), 27-33. Demmer, V. L. (2002). Civil Liberties and Homeland Security. The Humanist, 62(1). Eddlem, T. R. (2011). Anti-Fourth Amendment Patriot Act. from New American from http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/6988-anti-fourth-amend ment-patriot-act Fleming, L. (2002). The Balance between American Civil liberties and Security Objectives. Departmental Honors Thesis, Tennessee. Friedman, M Ganor, B. (2002). Defining Terrorism: Is One Man 's Terrorist another Man 's Freedom Fighter". Police Practice and Research 3(4), 287-304. Isolating Terrorism: A comparison of concepts of terrorism, organized crime and political violence. (2007). Langer, G. (2005). Poll: Support Seen For Patriot Act. from ABC News McCarthy, A PBS. (2002). Sept. 11 Dragnet. from PBS retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june02/dragnet_4-3.html Public Remains Divided Over the Patriot Act Saul, B. (2005). Definition of "Terrorism" in the UN Security Council: 1985-2004. Chinese Journal of International Law, 4(1). Washington Post. (2005). Vice President for Torture. from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501388.html What is Terrorism? Retrieved 18, 2011, from http://www.terrorism-research.com/