Civil Liberty versus National Security Research Essay

In Federalist No. 8

It is noted that even the most permissive countries, which assert to be safer, engage in the process of addressing the issue when national security is at risk. (Falk, 2007).

Hamilton’s Origin of Dread

As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, we have come to understand Hamilton’s origin of dread. (Luban, 2005).

Canadian Government Response

In the months that followed, the Canadian government partially retaliated against the assaults by approving Bill C-27, which contains the Act of Immigration and Refugee Protection. It is one of the argumentative sections of C-27 that deals with the procedure of security certificates, as Falk (2007) notes. The Federal Government uses the mechanism, on the Minister’s advice and, may detain or deport non-citizens and foreign nationals by the perception that they are a threat to the national security. Vaisse (2008) argues that after 9/11, the public has highly regarded safety over civil rights, but still, they have shown concern over government overdoing the process and intruding on their privacy.

Questioning the Policies

After 9/11, some researchers have questioned whether the greater interest of the people is that the policies of anti-terror will exceed their limits in confining civil rights, or they will fail to protect the country entirely. According to Asal and Rethemeyer (2008), the opinion balance has preferred protection. In 2010, the majority of people in the country said they were more worried that policies have not ultimately achieved the safety of the country. On the other hand, the minority said they were more disturbed that they had passed their limits in restricting the civil liberties of the average person (Bell, Cingranelli & Murdie, 2013).

Supporters and Analysts

In conclusion, the people who support the security certificates to be utilized have claimed that it is a preventative mechanism created to prevent and disrupt terrorists but not to authorize it after the attack has occurred unethically. In contrast, analysts argue that the balance is tilted in favor of national security over civil rights (Falk, 2007).

References

Asal, V. H & Rethemeyer, K. R (2008). The nature of the beast: Organizational structures and the lethality of terrorist attacks. Journal of Politics, 70 (2), 437–449.

Bell S, Cingranelli, D & Murdie A (2013). Coercion, capacity, and coordination: Predictors of political violence. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30, 240–262.

David, Luban (2005). Eight Fallacies about Liberty and Security. In Human Rights in the War on Terror, (ed). Richard Ashby Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 242–57.

Richard, Falk. (2007). Encroaching on the Rule of Law: Pst-9/11 Policies within the United States. In Alison Brysk & Gershon Shafir (Eds.), National Insecurity and Human Rights: Democracies Debate Counterterrorism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 14-36.

Vaisse, J (2008). Muslims in Europe: A short introduction in US-Europe analysis series, Washington, D. C. Centre on the United States and Europe Brookings, 1-6.