War on Terror
Your Name
Your Institution
War on Terror
The global war on terror has complicated the understanding of civil liberties in wartime over time as the United States’ government looks for means to protect itself. After the 9/11 saga, civil libertarianism seems to have taken a different direction as the justice and defense systems purge the nation in depth for any trace of terror activity. It is true that America is at constant war with individuals, extremists, or organized groups that would want to pose a threat to the safety of the people, but this seems to cost the US citizens the freedom of their social order (Hardin, 2004). Civil liberties during wartime ensure that the people are protected while at the same time the protection is not intrusive within their lives in a manner beyond the ordinary. After the 9/11 attack, the Patriot Act of 2001 has become the tool the government uses to complicate the human rights of Americans while State officials consider it as a means to spearhead the war on terror.
It is fair to say that civil liberties have become complicated today since the Patriot Act grants the government the freedom to overreach and abuse the people of America. There were cases where suspects for the 9/11 incident were detained for a decade while being tortured for the truth. It is well known that the international law prohibits torture and preventive detention. However, the American government was more than willing to portray its full power when threatened by the risk of terrorism. This led to enhancements within the criminal law of the country where the law enforcement agencies were encouraged to act on suspicion and probable cause to apprehend individuals who fit the criteria of a terrorist (Liptak, 2011). There has been more scrutiny within the religious and immigrant groups in the country now more than ever as the government exercises discrimination to narrow down suspects.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also supported these extreme actions by blocking plaintiff complaints against misuse of immigration laws by law enforcement officers. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 is an example of a case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government despite the abuse and unfair treatment of individuals based on race and religion. The government seems to use whatever it can to ensure that the 300page Patriot Act is executed even if it sows distrust among certain minorities within the state. There is no longer complete freedom as some individuals are rendered guilty before their trial and ruling. Mr. Ashcroft also admits to the possibility of the government using wiretaps to find criminals and their activities. This is against the privacy rights of the American people since the government has to prude into the lives of many innocent people before they get to the perpetrators.
It is fair to say that the Patriot Act of 2001 has made the freedom of the American people complicated and limited as it empowers government agencies to exercise full power as long as they are bent on preventing terrorism. Civil liberties are no longer at the top of the freedom pyramid as long as the government thinks there are threats to internal and external security. The war on terror is much more on a global scale and it is safe to consider that several other governments are adopting similar techniques. Certainly, there is need to raise alarm if social order is to be restored, and citizens given back their civil liberty.
References
Hardin, R. (2004). Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism. The Journal of Ethics, 8(1), 77-95. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/25115782
Liptak, A. (2011). Civil Liberties Today. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/us/sept-11-reckoning/civil.html
