After the 9/11 attack, there have been policies and procedures put in place to ensure such an attack does not occur again. However, there is concern over the increased security efforts which lead to infringement of liberal rights. The government has a duty to keep its people secure without undermining their civil rights and liberties. Liberty depends on this security, but the failure to balance the two has led to the development of a conflict which is related to the policies and procedures used for the safety (Dragu, 2011). The paper identifies the conflict that exists between liberty and safety by analyzing the role of police in undermining democracy in the efforts to create a safe environment. It looks at the impact of terrorism and technology on policing and the policies implemented to address the contemporary security issues.
After the attack, countries like the United States, Germany, France and the United Kingdom formulated policies meant to counter terrorist attacks. The policies were intended to increase security, but as a result, they reduced the liberties of their citizens. The right of privacy was no longer highly upheld, and the government was granted more surveillance power through accessing private communication and data and conducting searches. Therefore, police officers had unlimited access to persons private resources and this raised the alarm over the infringement of liberal rights (Dragu, 2011).
The conflict between the security and liberty is caused by some policies which undermine civil liberties. However, some policies meant to protect a country from foreign threats have a minimum impact on the rights of the local citizens. On the other hand, protection of liberty should not downgrade the national security. Therefore, the two should be viewed as dependent on the other liberty is secured for the good of individuals and the nation.
Some of the factors contributing to the conflict between freedom and security are the arrest and imprisonment of citizens because of their ethnicity and religion, access to private information including phone conversations and financial transactions. A liberal society is made up of citizens who have the freedom of expression and association without the fear of being under government surveillance. Therefore, it is believed that any policies that undermine such freedom are a threat to liberty. The policies that allowed the police to invade privacy have been under scrutiny and have been deemed to limit and reduce open communication and expression of ideas, especially politically (Larkin, 2011).
One of the challenges to resolving the conflict between liberty and security is the use of too much police force. The police use their capacity to carry out searches during a criminal investigation. In the quest for intelligence, the police may conduct house and property checks, phone conversations and during a public speech. All these measures are aimed at gathering information that will be used plan and prevent attacks by the federal agencies. However, the infringement of liberty by police may be an effective way of ensuring a safe environment (Waxman, 2009). This is because it does not give room for terrorists to carry out their activities within the community freely. The police should, however, use their capacity properly and allow freedom of speech, interaction, and privacy among the citizens. The citizens can also help create a safe environment by carrying out their normal activities and letting the police safeguard the environment.
The advancement of technology, especially since the beginning of the 21st century. There is increased access to mobile phones and use of the internet the in the transmission of information. Social media platforms and development of applications boosts security efforts but also improves terrorism (Steiner, 2009). Modern terrorism involves the use of informatics to recruit new members and to organize and conduct attacks. Technology has enabled terrorists and gangs to organize and coordinate their activities quickly. The police can legally access trails of criminal activities on the internet to investigate and prevent terrorist activities. Technology has led the to the formulation of policies to enable secure access to online information and resulted in flexibility enables easy adoption of the latest technology (Waxman, 2009).
Modern terrorism also calls for formation reactive response to prevent an attack rather than the traditional method of taking action after an attack happens. Therefore, security agents need to gather and gain access to any information about terrorist groups planning an attack to prevent it from happening. The information is collected from emails, phone conversations, and bank records and may involve innocent citizens.
Formulation and implementation of policies and procedures at the federal, state and local levels are one of the strategies developed to address modern security issues. Modern terrorism calls for the collaboration of among federal agencies, the state and local authorities. This enables easier information gathering and assimilation. Decentralization of intelligence gathering also allows accumulation of expert and effort from all the authorities (Dragu, 2011). There is also need for police training on identifying both traditional and modern terrorist activities. The police also need the training to acquire technical skills to use and adapt to changing technology on security issues. Police departments, therefore, developed measures to prevent the organized terrorism by formulating policies and procedures at the federal, state and local levels.
At the federal level, police improved partnership with federal agencies, which enables the formation of fusion centers across the country. The fusion centers are meant to collect and share intelligence at the local, state and federal levels which are then interpreted and helps to prevent terrorism by having prior information regarding any organized terrorist attack. The Department of Homeland Security was formed to consolidate the several federal agencies and was mandated to protect the United States from future terrorist attacks and respond to natural disasters. There was an integration between the intelligence and law enforcement agency occurred such that the law enforcement organizations are taught to apply more data measures in their operations (Steiner, 2009).
At the state level, the government is expected to ensure homeland security using local security assets like the emergency response to expanding their security beyond their borders. The states are also restructuring and becoming more focused on intelligence like through the fusion centers. The states also formulate policies aimed at improving security within their borders. At the local level, there is increased public campaigns and awareness to educate the citizens on terrorist activities. The citizens are given the responsibility for ensuring there is security. This is through allowing the community to report on any suspected terrorist or criminal plan that may be happening around them. The local police are also mandated to ensure a safe environment that is free from terrorist activities. The police protect target sites and provide emergency response to any attack within the locality. Intelligence from local police agencies is also transmitted to the fusion cells on to the federal agency (Waxman, 2009).
The policies and procedures formulated to address securities may, however, have a negative impact on the liberty and constitutional rights of citizens. For example, in collecting intelligence, federal and law enforcement agencies are allowed to access all the information about a person. Some information like bank accounts and social media activities may lower a persons privacy. The constitution provides for the right to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of association. However, security operations may limit such rights, especially for innocent citizens (Larkin, 2011).
A police policy that negatively impacts liberty is the intelligence gathering. Although it undermines the right to privacy and expression, the policy is of help in the long run in preventing terrorist attacks. For example, in 2008, intelligence contributed to finding out about, Aafia Siddiqui, who was suspected of supporting terrorism and was found with information regarding terrorist targets like Times Square, Statue of Liberty and the Plum Island. Therefore, the intelligence gathering ensures a safe environment by finding criminals and preventing attacks (Larkin, 2011).
A policy that impacts on liberty but not needed to provide security is the arrest, detention, and discrimination against minority communities who are US citizens. For example, Muslims are usually a target when it comes to terrorist activities. However, most Muslims are innocent and terrorist attacks do not occur based on religious lines but are carried out by extremists. Therefore, bans and arrests on Muslims may not help so much in ensuring security (Dragu, 2011).
References
Dragu, T. (2011). Is There a Tradeo Between Security and Liberty? Executive Bias, Privacy Protections, and Terrorism Prevention. University of Illinois at Urbana-Chapaign. Retrieved April 13, 2017
Larkin, P. (2011). How Must America Balance Security and Liberty. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from http://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/how-must-america-balance-security-and-liberty
Steiner, J. E. (2009, October 28). Improving Homeland Security at the State Level. CSI Publications, 53(3). Retrieved April 13, 2017
Waxman, M. C. (2009). Police and National Security: American Local Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism After 9/11. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 3(337), 377-406. Retrieved April 13, 2017
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
