Pros And Cons Of Counterterrorism

Effective counterterrorism relies on much more than a reduction in civil liberties. Although arguments have been made that we must all give up some liberties in the name of security, these security measures are rarely short lived and often lead to a contentious relationship between the American public and the government that serves it. The National Security Agency’s (NSA) global surveillance program, made public by Edward Snowden, exemplify how government efforts to collect data can be viewed as infringing on these civil liberties. Indeed, in the realm of counterterrorism, the U.S. finds itself in a no win situation; effective counterterrorism policy or upholding civil liberties. Although I am personally willing to relinquish some
6). He goes on to say, “U.S. leaders need to reaffirm America’s commitment to protecting individual liberties and upholding core values in the pursuit of national security” (Prieto, 2009, p. 6). In other words, our core values, the ideas we hold most true, should be the backbone to effective counterterrorism policy. Failure to recognize this will ultimately undermine “the legitimacy of U.S. counterterrorism efforts [and] erode the trust of allies and the American Public” (Prieto, 2009, p. 6). The question is, does a balanced approach require American’s to sacrifice some civil liberties to be effective? Again, Prieto (2009) argues that to be successful “counterterrorism policies [must] have two coequal goals in mind: the achievement of national security and the protection of individual liberty” (p. 70). The achievement of both these goals is the overarching challenge for policymakers as they develop and implement counterterrorism policy in the U.S. Failure to recognize this fact and taking a “one or the other” approach will slowly, but surely, transform the U.S. to something resembling that of a police state, rather than the free society we cherish