Does the war on terror require that we chose between protecting either national security or individual civil liberties?

Authors Avatar

 

Study Skills,

International Relations and Politics

L1

Does the ‘war on terror’ require that we chose between protecting either national security or individual civil liberties?

Civil liberties are rights that form the foundation of healthy democracies around the world. They can be either natural rights or citizen’s rights. Natural rights are those which it is believed each person is born with and are written in important historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence ’’ We hold these truths … that all men are created equal … with certain inalienable rights … life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’’ Citizen rights are usually set out by an institution or rule, such as the Data Protection Act (1998).  By definition, national security refers to the requirement to maintain the survival of the nation-state through the use of economic, military and political power and the exercise of diplomacy(). The issue of national security is usually raised after threats or acts of terrorism, which have been prevalent globally during the ‘war on terror’. This essay will argue in favour of civil liberties over national security.

The protection of civil liberties involves limiting the role of the state, however governments will always act in a ‘utilitarian’ way, usually policy change affecting society as a whole, as opposed to the needs of the individual. This became more apparent after September 11, 2001 attacks, when legislation was passed in both the USA and UK as a preventative measure. Such legislation also includes the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in the UK and the Patriot Act in the USA. Fenwick (2007, p. 129) gives a brief explanation of these pre-emptive measures in terms of our rights ’’ attention has turned to targeting possible terrorist suspects and curtailing their liberty in order to prevent terrorist activity before it can occur.’’ Legislation such as the Patriot Act is an example of this preventive legislation, which increases surveillance of the American inhabitants. However these types of policies have done nothing but induce a sense of fear and unrest in the minds of citizens and migrants. One important member of the campaign group Liberty commented that ’’ Over the past seven years we’ve been told ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ but a stream of data bungles and abuses of power suggest that even the innocent have a lot to fear’’(Charkrabarti, 2009). Limits on the legislation should be made to ensure that there is not an abuse of power.

Join now!

It is a fact that we now live in a society with ‘enhanced’ surveillance, this was recently covered by BBC news reports. CCTV cameras are being strategically placed in areas where migrant inhabitants are predominant. Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras are an example of covert surveillance. The problematic with these types of organisations (that deal with CCTV cameras and all other types surveillance) resides in the fact that they lack accountability and therefore the individual must be reassured that the capacity to invade his privacy is never abused (Foster, 2006, p.136). Newspaper articles challenging the legitimacy of government actions due ...

This is a preview of the whole essay