The political and social debate on whether to defend civil liberties or counterterrorism measures in the United States has been of critical concern. Prior to the 9/11 attack, the US was known for its preservation and fight for civil rights. However, this changed with the high insurgence of terrorist attacks in European countries as well as the US itself. The courts have had to contend with numerous legal battles concerning the protection of personal privacy data and the need for access to such information for national security. I believe that civil liberties can be sacrificed during times of crisis, especially if it is done temporarily for the sake of the whole community.
While the Bill of Rights deems civil liberties as inalienable, it is illegal to consider any infringements. However, liberal democracy or civil liberties have historically been infringed upon in the face of significant national threats. A prime example is when Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War, provided precedence for the necessity of civil liberty violations. During the outbreak of the war, Lincoln ordered a state of emergency declaring that all rights with certain states were suspended as well as caused the imprisonment of 13,000 civilians and further declared no inquiry be made regarding the same. Lincoln’s actions flouted the Constitution but were considered justified as he sought to save the country’s Union (Gorham-Oscilowski and Jaeger 450). The modern-day attempts by national security agencies have taken precedence from Lincoln’s actions when dealing with national as long as they are intended for the overall safety of the citizenry.
In addition to security crises, civil liberties are usually traded off whenever there is a significant health crisis trade-off in civil liberties. During a serious health outbreak, the cooperation of all citizens is important as it is the only way success can be achieved. It would be reasonable to trade off privacy and security concerns for the sake of the health of the whole population. While the Bill of Rights recommends that Americans have access to inalienable rights at all times, it is worth noting that infringements may occur temporarily until a period of crisis has ended.
Although Americans are usually willing to cooperate when they are called to trade off their liberties at times of crisis, there have been instances of resistance. The anti-mask movement of 1918 and 2020 during the Great Influenza and COVID-19 pandemics, respectively, are prime examples. Research has shown that people with lower education levels and a weak sense of attachment to the labor force are less likely to trade off their civil liberties (Yang). As a result, the opponents of trading off liberties are never willing as they usually feel that their interests are not well represented.
On the other hand, I presume that the awareness level concerning the consequences of not prioritizing national safety is the key factor in determining one’s willingness to give up their personal freedoms. Since I consider the collective well-being to be highly influential to my own state, I would be willing to accept governmental control for the sake of the population and, consequently, my own. In that way, allowing state officials to give valid recommendations and provide guidance based on objective goals would only benefit my position. At the same time, the idea of such guaranteed aid being offered only in cases of both medical and political crisis must be emphasized.
Works Cited
Gorham-Oscilowski, Ursula, and Paul T. Jaeger. “National Security Letters, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Constitution: The tensions between national security and civil rights.” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 4, 2008, pp. 625-644.
Yang, David. “Civil Liberties in Times of Crisis.”Center for History and Economics.