According to the Oxford dictionary civil liberty is, “the right of people to be free to say and do want while respecting others and staying within the law” (Freie, 2008, 255).
The civil liberties in the U.S are closely tied to its democracy. This basically means that it upholds such rights as, freedom of speech in which the press is also included; everyone is entitled to express themselves verbally regardless of their unpopular or radical beliefs.
Since the September 11 attacks, there have been various acts by the government that clearly bring out the breach of civil liberties in the country. Most of the restrictions have been targeted towards the Muslim communities within the territory regardless of their citizenship status.
There has been deep within the state. For instance, according to Heymann (2008), it was in 2002 June that the National Security Entry – Exit Registration program was put in place. It entailed digital fingerprinting as well as photographing for anyone who entered the United States and was not a citizen by any change.
Furthermore, it was made a requirement that there should be annual registration for anyone who was in the country for longer than thirty days. These also apply to the individuals within the country but are from nations that raise security concerns (p.11).
The success of these restrictions depends on how thorough the American administration is in flashing out “potential” terrorists. The American people are also meant to be very cooperative when it comes to helping the state in protecting the nation against terrorist organizations across the world.
For instance, they should hand in accurate information on whatever that seems to be threating their security in their respective neighborhoods. However, to a large extent America can be able to protect its citizens. For as long as the State deals with the issue of racial profiling, there might be loopholes in ensuring its citizens are safe.
At some point however, the American administration might loose on this battle if the citizens of Middle Eastern or Asian decent decide to react out of frustration. However, the U.S has taken the responsibility of dealing with this problem in some places.
The department of justice and that of homeland security have set up initiatives at the ports of entry into the United States to deal with this issue (Rights working group, 2009).
Another method that was used after the September 11 attacks to improve security was that of voluntary interviewing of non-citizens (Legomsky, 2010). These interviews were however not entirely voluntary because some of the interviewees later on explained that they only felt that it was an obligation.
This was basically due to the fact that it was targeted at the Muslims, South Asians and individuals of Middle Eastern origin. Hence, since they had to answer to the questions, some might have given inaccurate answers (Legomsky, 2010).
Furthermore, a good majority of targeted population for interviews might just be proven innocent. This as a result may lead to the some of the agents involved in these interviews to let their guard down. Consequently, the worst might as well take place.
After the 9/11 attacks, the congress was fast to pass the USA patriotic Act. This was meant to set up a spying system that would do so on its own citizens while reducing checks and balances on certain public sectors some of them including public accountability among others. (ACLU, 2010).
It has been argued over and over that the Act has nothing to do with terrorism. As a matter of fact, most of the congressional representatives claimed that the bush administration coerced them in to casting a yes or no vote before they could read the document. Voting a “no” according to the bush administration would mean that they were allowing further attacks.
The Act has increased the government’s powers in surveillance in certain areas such as record searches and intelligence searches among others. As for the latter searches, it extends to the fourth amendment, which was created for the specific reason of gathering intelligence information (ACLU 2010).
The patriotic act has ended up violating both the first and the second Amendment which states that, unless an individual has committed a crime is the government warranted to take on a search. However, the patriotic act requires the search be done regardless of any evidence that the person might be innocent.
The Act does not require that the “victims” be informed even after their privacy has been interfered with. This particular Amendment requires that the individual is provided with a notice prior or after the violation of his right to privacy.
This act is also unconstitutional since it is the complete opposite of what it upholds free speech. It prohibits free speech in the sense that those individuals on whom searches are done, they have no right to go telling everyone else about it. Even when there is no need for such secrecy, the act does not allow for such to happen.
The principles of democracy include freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to one’s own privacy among others. This particular Act which was hastily passed on the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks violates these principles to a large extent.
People no longer live freely as they used to especially in areas where there are immigrants from the nations that are perceived to host the terrorist groups. Unless the Act is amended, it will eventually do more harm than the good it was meant to do.
Torture is never the way to go and it may result to more harm to the society in the event an individual or a group of people decide to retaliate out of anger given that they are innocent.
References
ACLU. (2010).Surveillance under the USA Patriot Act. Web.
Freie, F.J. (2008). U.S. civil liberties after 9/11. Web.
Heymann, P. (2008). Muslims in America after 9/11: The legal situation. Web.
Legomsky, S. (2010). The ethnic and religious profiling of noncitizens: National security and International Human Rights. Web.
Rights working group. (2009). Violations of rights of non-citizens in the United States: A shadow Report to the UN committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Web.