Introduction
In the discussion about the full rights of the president, it is observed that the Supreme Court in the U.S has been very doubtful about the Bushs administration views on terrorism. This Court has limited restrictions on what the president can do or not. President Bush on most of the occasion has not been on the right an account. This has seriously reduced and demonstrated him as a violator of most of what the American constitution entails in resistance of the US Constitution delivered at Constitution Hall in Washington, DC.
Discussion
Despite criticism from a huge number of American citizens, the president claims that he has unilateral rights to go on with the war without a review of the recommended laws put in place by the Congress. Various depiction as a result of this abuse resulted to denial of any involvement by the Congress. The result was that, Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) whose work is to be certain that overseas intelligence observation has been reluctant since it has all the mutual authority from the president.
it is however during this period that the President in the process had to go out of his way to restore confidence to the American people that one some occasions the judicial permission is required for any government taking up war to another country. These lawful acts safeguards are still in place but astonishingly the President’s statements turned out to be false. Therefore the president of the United States in the resent times has been breaking the law over and over and persistently for his own good.In most instances, a leader who does not adhere to the law is a threat to the structure of the U.S Government.This is in accordance to the founding fathers who were unbending because they had put in place laws and they acknowledged that the structure of government which had been enshrined in the Constitution had an organization of checks and balances with a central purpose of governing through the rule of law.
Recent studies declassified documents showing that the war in Afghanistan which was given a full backing by senate was actually based on false information. On the other hand, the judgment by Congress to give authority on the Iraqi War perpetuated on the basis of wrong information. At this point, America would have been better off getting to know the truth and trying to avoid both of these huge mistakes in the history.
There is one thing that ought to be agreed upon, in that the danger from terrorism is all very real and there is merely no question that America should continue to go through.challenges steped in the wake of September 11th attack. The American government ought to be watchful in trying to shield its citizens from danger. A disagreement should come in where the President has to break the law to hinder terrorism a factor that can result to a weaker and more vulnerable exposure of the U.S citizens to attacks.
Contradictions in Bush Administration have sprouted up and there are claims that are defending their unprecedented power grabs.However the Attorney General asserts that the executive knew that the NSAs scheme was a forbidden one by existing law and that they had to consult with some section of Congress on changing the statute but since they were told that it probably would not be possible, there was no point of them to disagree on the Authorization of the Use of the military (Dickinson).
President Bush failed to convince the Congress so as to be given all the authority he acquired on the amendment of the AUMF but he secretly assumed power in the end and as if the congressional authorization was not of e y use therefore proceeded with his war on terror.
Looking at the war with Iraq, it was not worth the loss of Americans lives and other cost of attacking Iraq because up to date most of the families who were affected are still in pain since they either lost a family member or friend for some political gain of a single person (Feldman 67). President Bush on his part asserted since he was worried about the culture that devalues life and being an American president he had an a duty to advocate for the protection of every individuals life. This statement however true it may be was based on the fight for supremacy at the expense of others that who entail the Americans lives that have so far been lost.
The question of whether to get rid of dictators in other countries is relative because it depends on thet level of dictatorship that is taking place in the said country. At some point, it will be a ‘no’ because when a country helps another to get rid of a dictator, the helping country will invest much in this project thus affecting the economic status of the country. Like what happened in the U.S, it spent much of its budget in military sidelining other projects, this lead to the current economic situation where the dollar is declining compared to other strong currencies. When a country is spending more than their income, it is the common man who is going to suffer because their will be an increase in the tax ratios so as to cover the influx.
The other thing about getting rid of a Bush leadership is that he suppressed human rights since he used force so as to control the situation in the war between the U.S and Iraq. However, during this process several lives were lost. There was massive killing of the Iraqi militia leading to deprivation of human rights. Therefore when such acts are being committed , there will be war and the impact of war will lead to destruction of properties and a decline in economic situation of that country thus still the common man of the affected country will suffer since they will not be working and others will not engage in food production activities thus leading to hunger striking a group that are low income earners.
The Americans do not understand the issue of tradeoffs for security because if we look at the debate that sums up post 9/11 political affairs, it is politics that deals with security issues versus privacy. Discussions to monitor all the rights that an individual possesses is like taking off once life and it involves taking up all internet connections for security reasons an idea that is so extreme that the whole word will also feel too mild. In order for cyberspace to be policed all the internet surfing will have to be watched closely and this would mean that they will be providing the government with the power to look into the content of any e-mail received and all file transfer or any Web search.
Google has records that could also help in a cyber-investigation and it is said that privacy and security are said to be a zero-sum game. Were by if any privacy and security would really be a zero-sum game, there would have been mass migration into East Germany and current China because it is true that police states like those of China and Germany have less street crime and no one can try to argue that the general public are necessarily more secure. Debates have risen that there should be trade off security and privacy so often.Protection and privacy are not conflicting ends of a swing, one does not have to recognize merely less in one to get more of the other.
Since 9/11, just about three things have been in potential improvement, that is the airline security which entails reinforcing of the cockpit doors and the other prominent parts of an airplane. Everything else including all the security procedures that have an effect on the privacy, isecurity threats and are seen as a waste of effort.
By the same voucher, many of the “security” measures are being taken including a thorough look of national ID cards, warrant less massive data mining so it does very little to advance security and in some cases cause harm the security system. The government still claims of their success to be either wrong, or against fake threats therefore leading us to think that the debate going on is not for security versus privacy, it involves liberty versus control (Farer 361).
This can be noted in the comments made by government officials under Bush that privacy will no longer mean anonymity but Instead it should have a different meaning that the government and business to gain properly should safeguard individual’s private communications and monetary information that is everybody is expected to give up control of their isolation to others, who most probably get to make decision of how much of it is that deserve and what don’t you deserve (Stellios 30).
It therefore will result that people would have to choose security over privacy even if you don’t subscribe since it is obvious that security is one of the most important factors since it is vital to the survival, however, not just to human being but also to every living thing. Bush must know that privacy is unique to a person, but it’s a collective need and it is vital to personal dignity, to family life and to society and to what creates us to be uniquely human but not for survival.
Conclusion
When people set up untrue dichotomy it will of course lead people’s will to choose security over privacy in particular if they are scared them first. But it is still a false dichotomy since there is therefore no security when there is no privacy. Therefore liberty needs both the security and privacy since those people who would give in to essential liberty so as to purchase a small momentary safety, ought to have neither liberty nor safety.
Bibliography
Feldman D, ‘Deprivation of Liberty in Anti-Terrorism Law’ (2008) 67(1) Cambridge Law Journal 4.
Laura Dickinson Using Legal Process to Fight Terrorism: Detentions, Military Commissions, International Tribunals and the Rule of Law”Journal: California 2003 Law Review.
Michael Kent.A global view on the war against terrorism focus on the developed nations.Longman publications 2006 (2) 22-26.
Stellios J, ‘Sedition, Security and Human Rights: ‘Unbalanced’ Law Reform in the “War on Terror”’ (2006) 30(3) Melbourne University Law Review 923.
Tom J. Farer “Beyond the Charter Frame: Unilateralism or Condomunium” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 2. pp. 359-364. 2008. Web.