Politics, News & Issues >
Political & Economic Theory
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs national security more important than civil rights?
Results so far:
| Yes | 38% | 119 votes | Total: 314 votes | |
| No | 62% | 195 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIn the question of national security vs. civil rights there is a secondary question; "whose civil rights?" If we're talking about the civil rights of American citizens then the scales tip, slightly, for civil rights. If we're talking about non-citizens, such as Iraqis held for their actions against us, national security is the clear winner. Why? Because these people are not protected under our constitution, and therefore have no civil rights as defined by our laws. They should still be treated humanely, certainly, but not to the point that it has a potential impact on our national security. The idea of providing enemy combatants with lawyers and putting them at trial in our civilian courts might make some people feel good, but is a bad one for our national security, to say nothing of what it costs us.
Military trials won't provide the same level of civil rights to be sure, but they are much more cost effective. The outcome would also be much less subject to slick lawyers who defend these people, not because they feel they might be innocent, but because of easy money. In all matters national security should remain a very important consideration, but so should the civil rights of our citizens.
Safeguards should be a major part of any legislation, which has the potential to infringe on these civil rights. Wire tapping and the like should be possible, but only with approval of the court system, as it has been it in past. We do need to know who in the country is plotting against us, and those people do exist. Undeniably, the means to gather evidence against these people will sometimes go against civil rights, but it must be done to thwart efforts to harm us. It is an old clich, but "the good of the many sometimes is at the expense of the good to the few."
This is not the simple world of even a few decades ago. In years past people were confined to their own natural geographic area without the technology to do harm at a distance. Now it has become easy for a fanatical group in one part of the world to communicate with, and make a command to anyone on any part of the earth. The old religious wars were fought face to face on the ground. These days one person could travel anywhere and plant a small "dirty" bomb, which could be detonated from many miles away with a cell phone call. With threats this ominous and faceless, we need to use our own technology to defend our country. Technology which will sometimes of necessity impact our civil rights negatively.
Learn more about this author, Ken King.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
National security is obviously of utmost concern to everyone in this country in light of what is going on in the world today. The notion we were safe behind the imaginary walls of our borders was proven to be grossly misguided when, on September 11, 2001, the two towers of the World Trade Center dissolved into a massive cloud of dust and steely debris. Confidence in our defenses has been shaken as a result, and the natural reaction to that horrific event would be to tighten our laws and place restrictions on our freedoms in order to mitigate the risk of subsequent attacks. Therefore, it is more important than ever that we ask ourselves if national security is worth sacrificing our personal and civil freedoms.
The answer is no. Wiretapping, surveillance, imprisonment, searches and seizures are effective tools in fighting an enemy whose ability to disrupt and destroy is dependent upon retaining an element of secrecy, but to utilize these tools without due process would open doors to abuses that would ultimately erode all other civil liberties, such as free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to bear arms. Additionally, taking that course of action would weaken our society from within and accomplish that which the enemies of this nation so ardently desire: the obliteration of our culture.
Additionally, to cede the civil rights granted to us under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be to dismiss what it has cost this country to obtain and protect those freedoms in the past, and call into question the necessity of sacrificing countless lives in the last two hundred years defending and preserving them. The argument could be made that the world is a much different place now than it was in the past, but ask any World War II veteran if what they fought against was any less threatening than what we are faced with now. We cannot devalue what they fought so hard to preserve.
The principles that foster our American Spirit are worth protecting. They are what secure this nation's leading role on the world stage, and what we hold on to during the most trying times in our nation's history. While it is vital that steps be taken to insure our well-being in the face of new terroristic threats, it is just as vital that safeguards be incorporated to insure the preservation of our civil liberties. Granted, that is a difficult task at best, but we cannot turn our backs on who and what we are. The rest of the world is watching, and we have an unprecedented opportunity to demonstrate, in a most graphic way, the power of a free nation.
Learn more about this author, Cindy Thrasher.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political & Economic Theory
- With the nation's economic outlook improving, should the US Congress pass stricter finance regulations?
- Does illegal immigration help or harm the country of destination?
- Should we replace some of FICA and SE taxes with a 7% sales tax?
- Should each nation use its own currency or adopt an international currency?
- Is there a solution to the mortgage foreclosure crisis?
- Is the neo-Conservatism of William F. Buckley equivalent to Marxism?
