meow
National Security vs. Civil Liberties
In May 2013, Edward Snowden, a CIA and NSA employee, risked his career and freedom to do something he felt was right; let the world know that the United States had programs such as the interception of telephone metadata, PRISM, XKeyscore, and Tempora internet surveillance programs. This was called the most significant leak in US history by some and sparked up the discussion about the balance between national security and civil liberties. The country needs to strike a balance between national security and civil liberties by sacrificing some of one to give way for more of the other. National security is the goal of the constitution, of a rulebook, of a government, of politics. Rules are set so that the security of the people is not sacrificed. However, security is something that people feel, not necessarily see. When walking through a full-body scanner at the TSA checkpoint in an airport, one does not see security – they feel safe. Safety is a feeling that is hard to cater to a nation of 319 million people. One person’s child got shot in a nearby shooting and wants the second amendment changed, while his neighbor is a member of the NRA. However, too much security can be a bad thing. If the country would repeal the right to petition, assemble, speak freely, write freely– because defamation causes unrest – and people had to watch what they said and did at all times, they would feel unsafe. Yes, there are less riots and petitions (at least lawful ones), but people would live in constant fear. National security is something that can be managed to accommodate the feelings of the population of our country.
Civil liberties are things that have been in place since the time of the Declaration of Independence: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” However, it has been 237 years since then and certain things need to adapt to the times. Obviously, things like the first amendment should never be altered, but what about the
In May 2013, Edward Snowden, a CIA and NSA employee, risked his career and freedom to do something he felt was right; let the world know that the United States had programs such as the interception of telephone metadata, PRISM, XKeyscore, and Tempora internet surveillance programs. This was called the most significant leak in US history by some and sparked up the discussion about the balance between national security and civil liberties. The country needs to strike a balance between national security and civil liberties by sacrificing some of one to give way for more of the other. National security is the goal of the constitution, of a rulebook, of a government, of politics. Rules are set so that the security of the people is not sacrificed. However, security is something that people feel, not necessarily see. When walking through a full-body scanner at the TSA checkpoint in an airport, one does not see security – they feel safe. Safety is a feeling that is hard to cater to a nation of 319 million people. One person’s child got shot in a nearby shooting and wants the second amendment changed, while his neighbor is a member of the NRA. However, too much security can be a bad thing. If the country would repeal the right to petition, assemble, speak freely, write freely– because defamation causes unrest – and people had to watch what they said and did at all times, they would feel unsafe. Yes, there are less riots and petitions (at least lawful ones), but people would live in constant fear. National security is something that can be managed to accommodate the feelings of the population of our country.
Civil liberties are things that have been in place since the time of the Declaration of Independence: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” However, it has been 237 years since then and certain things need to adapt to the times. Obviously, things like the first amendment should never be altered, but what about the