When dealing with terrorism, we are battling a new sort of enemy. Our new enemy surely requires a new strategy to combat its weaknesses; however, with terrorism, the terrorist invariably has the upper hand because they exist on an entirely different plane than ever before. Thus, as policy drafters, it begs the question of how on earth do we search for these enemies that are lying in wait all over the globe? The answer thus far has been to use more technologies to attempt to track down these individuals. For example, the terrorists who attacked in 9/11 were in the United States for months before and even went to pilot school, (Simoncelli, T.). Facts such as this that were released to the media strategically in America were used as devices to pass legislation that allowed for a more invasive approach to target individuals within the United States who were deemed as suspects (aka. Muslim), (Simoncelli, T.). It is as a result of this that the overall role of crime fighting in social policy greatly changed within the United States.
In order to target its new enemy, the United States had to brainstorm in order to create new weapons to track these potential terrorists before they caused more terror. Thus, many new crime fighting technologies were proposed in order to find these individuals before they had the potential to cause more havoc. For example, biometrics, DNA collection, and crime spyware were introduced with the objective of catching these criminals before they were able to strike, (Biometrics). The problem with these new methods was that there was fundamental issue with applying these methods due to the laws that are prescribed in the United States Constitution, (Biometrics). The United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Some of these methods of crime fighting and surveillance have perpetuated a debate as to whether these practices are in fact constitutional?
When at first hearing some of these practices being proposed in the United States, I immediately had the image of a Brave New World novel being implemented into United States criminal procedure. The reason that I thought this was that our constitution was designed to prevent big government control and its effect on civil liberties. Thus, these new policies were quite scandalous for the United States because historically, our country tried to preserve the founding father’s intent, which was to keep the central government less powerful in order to avoid what they had experienced in England before leaving. What is interesting about this invasive legislation targeting terrorists is that it has been implemented by extremist American politicians who are willing to let go of protections that our country was founded on in order to get the “dangerous terrorists” that are secretly living in our midst. This is a very dangerous methodology because it then creates legislation that is perpetuated by hate and fear. In history, we have seen this all over Europe where extremist legislation led to the extermination of many innocents. An extreme example of this can be seen in Nazi Germany. In the debate in America, both sides are viciously protecting their own objectives. One side is protecting the American’s right to privacy and the other is protecting the supposed threat to the American way of life that terrorism presents. The debate, although heated, is warranted. As an American, I of course want to be safe; however, I also do not want to be living in a society where the government has rights over my privacy. That being said, it is because of this heated debate in American society that politicians were able to pass more invasive crime fighting legislation in the wake of 9/11 that arguably violates many protections that previously existed in the United States.
In having this discussion, it is important to analyze how these various technologies could arguably invade the privacy that the United States has been so ardently protecting for centuries? Beginning with spyware, the United States has entered into a new era with the Internet becoming commonplace. There has been an increased need to control the Internet due to its wealth of information that is both a blessing and a curse upon society as a whole. In finding a way to curtail the Internet, policy makers have to wrestle with how much privacy they can legally invade in order to obtain their goal of eliminating terrorism? (Drozdova, E.). This is a fascinating debate because ideally, the government wanted to use spyware to see what individuals who were on the target list were looking for, (Drozdova, E.). It was viewed that this sort of invasion would lead to conclusions that would help the United States catch a terrorist before they acted based on their Internet searches, for example, (Drozdova, E.). While this method, in theory, is logical, it is important to assess what cost it brings to American society and the protections of personal liberties. What the government has to assess is whether it is worth the liberties it is denying for the results that it is achieving? This question is still being viciously debated today, particularly with the increased terrorist attacks that we have unfortunately witnessed in Paris and Brussels recently.
In assessing whether biometrics is a viable option, the answer lies in the way that biometrics is used. Historically, the United States has racially profiled their enemy of various periods throughout history. This can be clearly seen by analyzing the history of the United States. Where biometrics gets tricky when pertaining to civil liberties is in the question of how biometrics are used? For example, United States permanent residents have to give finger prints when passing through customs. This has become more common in the wake of terrorism. Additionally, those who are visiting the United States on a tourist visa are subject to even more stringent requirements for admission. The problem in this system is that the United States is using biometrics to target and interrogate the Muslim community within their borders due to their supposed link to terrorism, (Biometrics). What this has also caused is the police having the right to invade the privacy of these individuals who are already living or visiting legally in the United States solely based on their country of origin and the ties that it potentially has to active terrorist groups, (Biometrics). What has made Biometrics a fascinating debate is that it arguably does not really help the objective of finding and eliminating terrorism. Ironically, what we have seen from the recent attacks in Europe is the link between terrorists with Syrian roots who were raised in Europe that had ties to home. Many scholars believe due to these individuals being alienated from European society, they were forced into extremism by European countries. This debate does have validity and is caused by extreme methods caused by legislation that alienates these target groups. Where the debate gets fascinating is when one is debating whether using technologies such as Biometrics are valid in the sense that many times, the terrorist was born in or already living in the country and merely changed ideologies because of forced isolation, (Biometrics). Unfortunately, politicians both in Europe and the United States fail to see this link as to how their legislation, at times, not only takes away civil liberties but also alienates the group that in its majority is not initially responsible for the terrorist’s acts. Their legislation, in essence, can perpetuate even more terrorists being swayed to alternative dangerous ideologies as we have seen with ISIS recently.
Another extreme measure that has been proposed is the concept of DNA Collection. This was the particular suggestion that really brought me to the Brave New World image that I had in my mind. Truthfully, I am unsure of how DNA Collection is actually going to prevent terrorism in the long run? I am unsure as to whether the civil liberties that could be potentially violated are worth the intelligence towards combating against terrorism that we would achieve as a result. That being said, DNA Collection has been proposed and implemented in some ways in the United States, (Simoncell, T.). That being said, even though it is being used to target the Muslim potential terrorist suspects in the United States, I have not observed evidence that sufficiently justifies its usage as an effective form of terrorism crime fighting. However, many would disagree and say that it is necessary to protect “American security and the American way of life that is being attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism.”
In ascertaining how these various forensic technologies are potentially violating civil liberties, it is important to understand the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states that: The right of the people to be secure 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 or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, (Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution). When looking at the Fourth Amendment, it is important to note that this only applies to United States citizens. This is important because many of the people that the government is targeting are not in fact United States citizens, thus, the protection against unwarranted search and seizures does not apply. However, what about those who are United States citizens?
The answer to this question is complicated, but it is undeniable that the legislation passed during President Bush’s presidency did violated the Fourth Amendment of the Untied States Constitution. Now, why was it allowed to go through? This is because there was such an outcry from the public in the wake of 9/11 that legislation slipped through the cracks that would not have been passed otherwise. In fact, many people believe that we would not have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened because Congress would have never allowed the invasion. These issues are quite relevant because the legislation that was passed allows the government to collect forensic information on individuals who are deemed suspects without a warrant, (Simoncelli, T.). This in turn violates the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant in the United States. Yet, it is still active legislation that is used to target suspected individuals in the Muslim community today.
This reality brings up an important point about American legal culture. The point is that American law finds a way to pass their objectives even if they are unconstitutional when there is a societal outcry to do so. This has been seen in ending slavery, abortion, gay marriage, terrorism, and much more. Even though our system is comprised of checks and balances, there have been many events in our history where the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch have been utilized to foster social change. The question that is relevant to these additions to crime investigation as they are applied to how we fight the war against terrorism, is whether these provisions actually do violate civil liberties? In my view, they actually do. However, it is important to recognize whether we as a public actually want this in order to “get the terrorists.” Personally, I am not convinced that alienating these individuals within the United States is going to help our quest to eradicate terrorism. As we have seen in Europe, this has proved to be immensely ineffective and has actually, made matters worse.
The recent events in Europe also highlight another American tendency. For example, in France, the President declared a state of emergency, which allowed him to pass even more controversial legislation against the Muslim community. These measures further perpetuated the conflict between Muslims and the non-Muslims in France. American has the same tendency. As mentioned earlier, Americans pass emergency legislation in order to rectify a national emergency. In fact, American politicians exploit this to their advantage in order to target specific groups and achieve their objectives. A great example of this is the “red scare” that happened with McCarthy. This is a classic example of how the constitution was violated with the objective of targeting potential communists. The ironic aspect of this plight was that the majority of the people were falsely accused of being Communist.
What these examples highlight is America’s tendency to discriminate and create extreme legislation in order to target a specific group in the wake of a national crisis. Where these policies are greatly flawed is that they do violate our constitution, yet they still happen and history repeats itself. Where we run into immense problems today is that our enemy does not have geographical borders as they once did. Tracking this enemy is exceedingly difficult and requires creative and innovative approaches with the objective of saving lives extinguished by terrorist attacks. That being said, American has an uphill battle to face with implementing invasive technologies such as Biometrics, DNA collection, and methods to fight cyber crime. It will be interesting to see how far the American politicians will go to fight terrorism and at what cost to civil liberties they will deem appropriate to quash in their quest.
References
Biometrics: Who’s Watching You? Electronic Frontier Foundation: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World. Retrieved from: https://www.eff.org/wp/biometrics-whos-watching-you/
Drozdova, E. Civil Liberties and Security in Cyberspace. CISAC Report. Retrieved from: https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/5711/uploads/.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Find Law. Retrieved from: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html#sthash.YHER7tZr.dpuf/.
Simoncelli, T. and Krimsky, S. A New Era of DNA Collections: At What Cost to Civil Liberties? American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. https://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Simoncelli__Krimsky_-_DNA_Collection__Civil_Liberties.pdf/.
