Since this question appears to be asking for a well thought out
opinion, that is what I will give. If I am incorrect in this
assumption, please request a clarification and I will gladly update my
answer to reflect this.
I believe that in order to balance the security interests of the
country with the individual freedoms and rights, it is important to
consider the constitution, and the intents of the founding fathers.
Firstly, one must make sure that any policys being put forward do not
directly contradict the constitution. Unfortunately, this has not
always been the case. Since the terrorist attack of 9/11, many bills
such as the patriot act have been passed that erode or condradict
rights enabled in the constitution. Though it may appear to be a
prudent course of action given our apparent need for increased
security as of late, it is a dangerous course for the country to
follow.
As is taught in high school government classes, the first ten
ammendments to the constitution, our bill of rights, was not even
thought necessary at the time, since all rights were inherently given
to the people. As a matter of fact, the bill of rights was thought by
some to be counterproductive, as it implies that rights not outlined
therin are not given to the population, even though the founding
fathers felt it worked the other way around, that anything not given
to the government was given to the people.
How this relates to the question at hand is thusly; the people in the
age of the founding fathers worked very hard to gain independance from
a government that oppressed them and where they had few rights. They
put into place a framework and an idealogy that the state's security
was not as important as people's freedoms. Those freedoms that were
important enough to mention specifically were outlined in the bill of
rights. Therefore, in order to maintain the integrity of our
government and the security of its position as an organizing body for
our country, it is just as important to make sure people's rights are
held up as it is to provide for the common defense.
In order to accomplish this balance, what would be needed is to take a
careful look at every ammendment to the constitution and make sure
that none are in disagreement before making any policy for the
security of the nation. If terrorist countries have the ability to
frighten the united states to the point that we are willing to give up
our freedoms to defend ourselves, we have no security whatsoever, and
no amount of personally invasive policy will help us. On the other
hand, if we are to maintain our freedoms despite these security
problems, we will have won.
So, in conclusion, individual freedom and rights are the backbone of a
free society's security. In order to maintain our security, we must
maintain our freedoms outlined in the constitution, and any security
policy that undermines these freedoms undermines the country's ability
to conduct itself in a positive manner and even undermines it's
security.
I hope that you found this answer to be satisfactory. If I have
commented along the wrong tangent, or you need more information,
please request a clarification and I will be happy to change my answer
to meet your needs.
Referenced information:
US constitution: [ http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
]
Amendments to the constitution [
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html ] |
,
0 Comments
)