In addition to this, the interests of the American people are further protected by its constitution. The articles in the constitution outline the powers of the president, congress and the courts, the relationship among the states and the rights of its citizens.
The Bill of Rights, which was engineered by James Madison, was enforced in 1791, and it provided ten amendments to the original constitution. The first two amendments allowed for freedom of speech, the press and assembly and the right to bear arms. The forth to eighth amendments deal with procedural rights. They include being protected from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, the double jeopardy rule, the right to have a trial by jury, and the prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments. These amendments have compounded the protection that American citizens receive in an event of an abuse of power.
These rights, however, are not without limits. Firstly, during the initial stages of implementing the Bill of Rights and its amendments, Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton opposed it as they believed that the amendments would limit the rights listed in the original constitution.
In recent times, however, legislation that has been passed has attempted to limit these civil rights that were initially granted to Americans. One such example which was passed by both houses of Congress with a resounding majority is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA Patriot Act) 2001. It was passed shortly after the terrorist attacks on the 9th of September 2001. The Act allows intelligence agencies such as the FBI and the CIA to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, emails and other forms of communications. It also has provisions for the Secretary of the Treasury to exercise tighter control over financial transactions and gives power to authorities to detain terrorist suspects with less transparency with regards to the procedures being used to do so. The definition of the term ‘terrorism’ is also extended to include that of domestic terrorism and thereby giving more powers to the law enforcement agencies.
The passing of the Patriot Act has brought about widespread criticism. It can be clearly seen that the civil rights of millions of innocent Americans have been limited as a result of the Act. In particular, it possibly violates the fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states that “the right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. Many academics also believe that the passing of the act has also been seen as opportunistic on the part of the American government, who can now gain a greater control over their citizens by using terrorism as an excuse to limit their rights.
However, although some feel that it is an intrusion of privacy and civil liberties, it is a necessary one which would enhance national security and prevent disastrous events such as 9/11 from happening again. The question then would be if these precautionary measures which limit the civil rights of Americans are actually effective. It brings in issues of whether the correct people are being detained as terrorist suspects or are they simply innocent people. If it is the latter, there would be an implication that human rights are being violated has well. This again, would show that America, a nation that is a liberal democracy, violates human rights on some occasions.
The people of most liberal democracies are granted the freedom of expression and the right to protest. These rights have allowed the people to freely criticise policy makers and in some instances even encouraged them to alter their policy to bring it to be more in line with the peoples’ requirements. The idea of a pressure group originates from this principle. A pressure group is one that does not officially put up candidates to run for an election but lobbies for change within government policies to suit their goals. Examples of pressure groups include the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
It is worth mentioning about pressure groups as they highlight a fundamental limit to the right to have the freedom of expression. Although expressing criticisms about policy makers are allowed, there is no guarantee that these criticisms would be addressed and used constructively to improve policy decisions. Many pressure groups have been unsuccessful in their attempts to sway government decisions in favour of their requests. An example would be the Lord’s Day Observance Society which discourages working on a Sunday. However governments who have economic prosperity high on the agenda would pay little attention to this as they would push legislation through to enhance trading and hence it would be highly improbable that this group would be able to fulfil its goal.
Pressure groups use a wide range of tactics to get their message across. These include organising protests through large assemblies. There are, however, certain limitations with regards to the conduct that is expected from the participants of these protests and assemblies. They are allowed to express their criticisms in a peaceful, orderly manner and cannot go over this boundary and resort to violence.
An example that can depict this limitation is the violence displayed by pressure groups during the 2005 G8 summit held in Edinburgh. Riot police had to contain anarchists and anti-capitalist protestors who were campaigning for trade justice and had resorted to violence to get make their message known. The end result was that the protestors were arrested and many were injured.
Although there are limits to the freedom of expression and assembly, it is a welcomed limit so as to prevent these peaceful protests and assemblies from escalating into violence and governments are right to impose these limits.
The advances and development of nuclear technology over the past century has led to some countries gaining the capabilities of producing nuclear weapons through the spreading of technical knowledge and materials. This has led to the controversial issue of whether all countries should have the right to go nuclear. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), there are five official nuclear powers, namely America, France, Britain, Russia and China, along with three other ‘unofficial’ states who are India, Pakistan and Israel. The NPT also serves as an instrument in limiting other states from having nuclear weapons.
Countries such as Iran have been using nuclear power to generate energy, but have since been suspected of expanding their capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction. US intelligence agencies are not sure of Iran’s exact intentions, but have predicted that it would be producing enough highly enriched uranium to make a weapon by 2015. Iran has denied these claims and says that its nuclear programme is purely for the use of generating power, and to establish nuclear generated power as an alternate energy source. There have been calls by America and the United Nations for Iran to completely disband its nuclear programme but Iran has not complied.
The issue of Iran and its nuclear programme has highlighted many issues and controversies with regards to the limits being placed on the rights to utilise nuclear power in some countries. It outlines that while it can be used for civilian purposes such as generating power, it should not be used to produce weapons.
Countries such as America would also find it difficult to prevent Iran from making nuclear arms until they themselves disarm. America may then gain some negotiating leverage by doing so. Currently, Iran has no incentive to comply with America as they themselves have nuclear arms and are asking Iran to stop a possible nuclear arms programme. The NPT also provides for the official nuclear powers to eventually destroy their stock piles of nuclear weapons. Unless there is some evidence of that becoming a reality in the near future, countries such as Iran will continue to work towards acquiring nuclear weapons.
There should also be tighter international regulation to limit the rights on the use of nuclear power for civilian purposes only, and this should apply to all countries, as opposed to the current situations where some countries have the right to bear nuclear arms while others do not. This would also be more in line with concepts of egalitarianism among the countries of the world.
However, the possibility of this happening is unlikely. Most nuclear powers would not give up their weapons simply because they are a powerful deterrent and also because of their insecurity of nations such as Iran and North Korea, thereby lessening the likelihood of a nuclear free world.
In conclusion, rights are something that is essential for mankind and for the different countries around the world. However, it must be confirmed that these rights are exercised with responsibility and are not abused and to ensure that they are not taken advantage of. This is one main reason as to why limitations should be placed on rights. Policy makers have a huge responsibility in regulating and altering these limitations so that the people achieve the best possible balance of entitlements.
