Answer

Social Issue: Freedom and Security

Thesis: Ensuring security and freedom of citizens requires a proper balance to avoid the erosion of civil liberties.

Entry#1

Haynes, D. D. (2015). Liberty vs. security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/liberty-vs-security-an-old-debate-renewed-in-the-age-of-terror-b99500066z1-303775951.html/

            Haynes (2015) argues that “in a world threatened by terrorist groups such as the Islamic State, elements of the Patriot Act are necessary for national security. But there must be a balance, and for years now, we have lost our balance” (Para. 9).

            Since terrorist groups are greatly threatening the world today, it is important to consider reference to the Patriot Act with regards to national security (Haynes, 2015). It ensures that there is a balance on when to take action, and when the action is not necessary. Unfortunately, this balance has been out of place for the past years.

            This quote is selected because it provides an explanation on the reasons why it is important to maintain a proper balance when maintaining security. Although there were two opposing views, where some believed that the government should give individuals their right to complete freedom and others believed that the eavesdropping program should be maintained, it is clear that both parties are wrong. The government need to have some leverage that will help it to maintain the safety and security of the country from terrorist activities. However, this should not be used as an excuse to deny innocent individuals their freedoms.

Entry #2

Kristof, N. D. (2002). Security and freedom. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/10/opinion/security-and-freedom.html

            According to Kristof (2002), “The administration’s insistence on secret detentions, on secret immigration hearings, on secret evidence — all this means that civil liberties are eroded without any opportunity for public scrutiny or meaningful debate.” (Para. 12)

            By following the secret route of trying to maintain security of the country, the use of secret detentions, secret immigration hearings, and secret evidences have all contributed to the erosion of civil liberties (Kristof, 2002). This is not considered to be the right approach since the actions are taken by the administration without providing the option of any meaningful debates.

            Through the examples provided in this quote, the approaches taken by the government can be analysed. The fact that it does not give the opportunity for criticism from the public shows that the administration may be trying to hide some of its illegal actions. Otherwise, there would be no need to hide the processes from the public eye. It is important to also consider public input since any violations of human rights will be accounted for accordingly. However, through the secrecy involved, it is impossible for member of the public to even be aware of what is happening. This shows that the freedom that many seek is already being violated in secret.

Entry #3

Roman, P. (2015). The hard dilemma: Counterterrorism and/or shallow freedom. Open Democracy: Free Thinking for the World. Retrieved from https://www.opendemocracy.net/petre-roman/hard-dilemma-counterterrorism-andor-shallow-freedom

            Roman (2015) notes that, “In a CRS Report for Congress from January 2007, these are presented as conflicting goals and courses of action: (1) limiting the freedom of individual terrorists, terrorist groups and support networks to operate unimpeded in a relatively unregulated environment; versus (2) maintaining individual freedoms, democracy and human rights” (Para. 2).

            A conflict in goals and courses of action exist since it is quite difficult to identify approaches where the action of individual terrorists, terrorist groups and even their support networks can be limited while also ensuring the maintenance of individual freedoms, their democracy, and their human rights (Roman, 2015).

            To better understand the security and freedoms dilemma, it is important to consider the conflicting goals that the same administration is trying to achieve. By focusing on one goal, the other one may need to be forfeited. That is why a balance is very important to achieve to ensure that none of the goals is forgotten at the expense of the security and freedom of the people. Thus, to also understand why this is a very heated debate, this quote highlights how both goals seem to be focused on opposite actions.

Entry #4

            Lastly, Roman (2015) also acknowledges that, “Bearing all this in mind, we are confronted with the fact that terrorism is becoming increasingly violent and tries to destabilize the existing order on an ever-widening basis” (Para. 19).

            As terrorism is quickly becoming even more violent, it also works by destabilising the existing order that exists in the society (Roman, 2015).

            The effects of terrorism on the current actions taken by the government in response to security and freedom can be understood through this quote. The cases of terrorism are not only worsening, but also impacting how the government reacts to such situations. It is the reason why many administrations are considering unacceptable approaches such as secret spying on individual activities to try and ensure terrorism is kept at bay.