English
Introduction
This paper will discuss the ethical challenges between human rights and national security. The issue addressed specifically in this paper is: “Should the United States government compromise human rights to achieve the objectives of international security”.
After the September 11, 2001 bombing in the U.S., strict security measures had been taken by the government to ensure the security and safety of the people. The U.S. government implemented the National Security Agency (NSA) Warrantless Wiretapping Program, by allowing the warrantless wiretapping of the citizens despite the violation of the right to privacy. The primary objective of the government is to warrant the survival of its regime and to preserve international security and to safeguard the public from future terrorist attacks. One of ways in carrying-out investigations is surveillance of the citizens through warrantless wiretapping and without asking for the permission of the person under investigation.
Thesis Statement: The U.S. government should be able to balance the interest between human rights and international security, by not allowing civil liberties and democracy to be compromised.
Importance of the Constitutional right to privacy
The increasing reliance of society on electronic communications such as mobile phones, emails and faxes has come with a hefty price. The privacy of these new technologies cannot be ascertained since they can present the danger of personal information which can easily be obtained by third parties (“Wiretapping And Privacy Rights”, Supreme Court Debates).
There are several cases decided by the Supreme Court upholding the Constitutionality of the right to privacy of citizens. This was illustrated in the case of Katz vs. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that the novel concept of electronic surveillance is considered a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy. This case held that the act of the federal agents should be treated as trespassing, and an unnecessary on the part of the law enforcement agencies. There was blatant failure on the part of the federal agents to observe a reasonable expectance of privacy on the basis of the electronic surveillance. The court ruled that the act of the police in planting a listening device inside the vehicle of the defendant is a violation of the right to privacy that is a protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Another case involving analogous set of facts is Nardone v. U.S., 308 U.S. 338 (1939), where the Supreme Court held that where evidence that was obtained in violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendments cannot be presented in court. To allow the evidence to be admitted by the court shall is an utter disregard to the ethical standards of the right to privacy which destroys the personal liberty of the defendant. However, the burden of proving that such evidence was illegally used by the prosecution, shall be shifted on the part of the defendant, while the prosecution must be given the ample opportunity to prove that such evidence came from an independent origin.
In the later case of Goldman v. U.S., 316 U.S. 129 (1942), the High Court held that the use of the detectaphone by federal agents cannot be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Such stemmed from the act of the defendant who spoke insider the comforts of his own office. Henceforth, there was no intention on the part of the defendant to spread the conversation beyond the confines of his room. Therefore, the assumption that the defendant took the risk of having the conversation recorded using a detector in the adjoining room was not present. These rulings of the Supreme Court showed that every citizen holds a reasonable expectation of privacy while engaged in a conversation while inside a public phone booth as a guaranteed right under the Fourth Amendment. The rationale behind the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment is to protect unreasonable searches by arresting officers and to recover the fruits of the crime.
Present Wire-tapping Laws
The NSA wiretapping law allows the warrantless surveillance of Americans and a clear violation of the people’s right to privacy. It will be absurd if the government will allow the civil liberties and democracy to die in pursuance of national defense (Baldwin and Shaw 429). This in effect will sabotage civil liberties, which is the very essence of national defense to protect the people against unlawful aggression.
International Security and Terrorism
Individual security and international stability are two terms that have become interrelated due to the rise of global terrorism. Security threat refers to anything which impedes a relevant organization in order to ensure individual security (Aydin 7). In recent time, international security has become more elusive due to the interaction of local and global forces.
The terrorist attack in the U.S. that occurred on September 11, 2001 has become one the biggest threat to international security. On the part of the U.S., such event triggered the implementation of intensive security measures on the part of the government to ensure the security and safety of its citizens. Prior to the September 2011 attack, there were inadequate security policies in place which changed the country’s approach to terrorism.
As part of the security measures enforced by the U.S. government, it created the National Security Agency (NSA) Warrantless Wiretapping Program during the time of President George Bush. This program has given the permission to allow warrantless wiretapping of the citizens by federal agents and law enforcement agencies (Baldwin and Shaw 432). However, the NSA program was protested by the nation on the ground that such it is tantamount to the blatant abuse of executive power and put in issue the constitutionality of the program. The Bush administration remained firm that NSA is a powerful tool to protect the country against global terrorism.
Every nation intensified its own security measures to fight global terrorism. In the U.S., the government created security policies to reinforce the defense mechanism of the country using modern technology and communication systems (Mearsheimer and Walt, “An Unnecessary War”). With these new security measures in place, there was a strict monitoring of the critical borders of the country. The U.S Congress enacted counterterrorism legislative measures against terrorist activities, more particularly the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. This law became enforceable on November 19, 2001, or barely two months after the September 11 terror attack. Such policy was established for the purpose of securing the commercial aviation, deter any future aircraft piracy and hijacks, and provide a system for data analysis and intelligence information gathering (Vacca 663). Thus, any potential terrorist shall be prevented from boarding the aircraft from the point of entry in the U.S. using airport security screeners in search for any explosive devices and firearms. With the use of computer-generated technical devices such as high-powered surveillance cameras, it was easier to trace the explosive residues (Vacca 663).
Other anti-terrorism measures implemented by the U.S. governments included pervasive data gathering in search for possible terrorists. Some of the intelligence gathering measures included any data that will identify the leaders of terrorist groups, present members, financial resources, weapons, facilities and their allies. Some of the latest technological devices were “IMINT (imagery intelligence), SIGINT (signal intelligence) and HUMINT (human intelligence)”(Maras 162). Using these high-powered devices amounted to early warning of threats and conflict through visual images of the intended operation and imaging satellite of future terroristic activities. These devices provide transmissions coming from broadcast systems, radar, communications, and use of visual surveillance and wiretapping activities to gather information on terrorist organizations.
There are important points to consider when the federal agents conduct the warrantless eavesdropping under the NSA program. First, it is synonymous to warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens; Secondly, the NSA violates the Constitutional right to privacy of the people. It bears stressing that violation of human rights cannot justify the pursuance of international security. The primary objective of the U.S. government is to ensure that the public is safeguarded from future attacks, but at the same time, to be able to preserve democracy and civil liberties at all times, in accordance to the guidelines implemented by international laws.
Ethical issues between human rights and international security
The effect of global terrorism crated means and methods to protect international security, but clearly disregarded human rights. This was illustrated in the case of United States v. Robel. Although international security and national defense are of primary importance, it is essential on the part of the states to be able to balance national security and respect for human rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren argued that there should be a careful balance between the national security interests and democratic principles since to goal of national defense must not be considered as an end in itself to justify the exercise of power to pursue its objective. International security and national defense shall work together to defend the very morals and ideals of every state and to protect its citizens. Compromising civil liberties, such as the right to privacy kills the democratic principles in order to justify national defense (Baldwin and Shaw 429). As a result, this will deprive the people of their civil liberties, which is the very core of national defense that seeks to protect the people against terrorism. Thus, the government should uphold the constitutional rights of the people for the preservation of national security such as the right to privacy. Baldwin and Shaw state that “The essence of the Constitution is to promote democracy, respecting formal and informal obligations within the bounds of legal framework, and recognition of human rights and civil liberties” (429).
Conclusion
Therefore, the U.S. government should be able to weigh and balance the interests of all parties that will be affected before enactment of a law. The U.S. government should be able to balance the interest between human rights and international security, by not allowing civil liberties and democracy to be compromised. Such effort on the part of the U.S. government must be viewed as part of the country’s goal to fight global terrorism. Armed with this objective, it is noteworthy to mention that the goal of constitutional law is to preserve both domestic and international order and to allow the nation to protect its interests within a prospective legal framework (Baldwin and Shaw 429). With this anticipated legal framework, it will enable the government to implement effective measures to defend national security, and at the same time, to allow it to act in the pursuance of the national spirit.
Works Cited:
Aydin, Mustafa and Kostas Ifantis. International Security Today: Understanding Change and
Debating Society. Ankara: Center for Strategic Research, 2006. Print.
Baldwin, Fletcher N. and Robert B.Shaw. “Down to the Wire: Assessing the
Constitutionality of the National Security Agency's Warrantless Wiretapping
Program: Exit the Rule of Law”. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public
Policy 17.3 (2006): 429-472. Print.
Blocher, Danja. “Terrorism as an International Crime: The Definitional Problem.” Eyes On
The ICC 8.1 (2011): 107-138. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 3 Feb.
2014.
Goldman v. U.S., 316 U.S. 129 (1942)
Katz vs. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Keanan, Kevin M. Invasion of Privacy: A Reference Handbook. California: ABC-
CLIO, 2005. Print.
Kies, Marianne F. “Policing the Police: Freedom of the Press, the Right to Privacy
and Civilian Recordings of Police Activity”. George Washington Law Review
80.1 (2011): 274-310. Print.
Maras, Marie-Helen.Counterterrorism.Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2012. Print.
Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt.An Unnecessary War.Foreign Policy. February 3,
2014, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2003/01/01/an_unnecessary_war.
Vacca, J.R. (2009). Computer and Information Security Handbook. Burlington: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Nardone v. U.S., 308 U.S. 338 (1939)
Solove, Daniel J. & Schwartz, Paul.M. Privacy, Information and Technology. New
York: Aspen Publishers, 2006. Print.
United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967)
"Wiretapping And Privacy Rights." Supreme Court Debates 4.3 (2001): 65. MAS Ultra –
