In the modern world, there has been constant discussion about how to find a balance between personal safety and national security. On which of these two issues should be prioritized, the different groups involved in this discussion do not appear to agree. However, the primary point of contention is the impact that the policies will have on the general public rather than the relative importance of the two issues. (Hamilton, 2006).
Finding a common ground
Finding a common ground is a difficult job because the issue of individual rights and national security are so closely related. (Hamilton, 2006). Notwithstanding the fact that many people would wish to have full right to individual protection, they would rather be ensured of their security within the country. As it were, the two must be given without essentially bringing on a conflict of interest between the two. National security is often organized in such a manner that it is provided alongside rights of individuals but contains a few limitations which are due to the overriding interests.
Legitimate Status of the Individual Privacy versus National Security Issue
Contentions relating to the individual protection and national security came into the spotlight after the September 11, 2001, terrorist events that took place within the United States. This was one of the biggest blows to the nation's security apparatus due to the fact that it caught them by surprise. Terrorism had been present in the country prior to the 9/11 incident but was not as pronounced. The previous occurrences had a very negligible impact on the national security and consequently, the individual security was not affected as well. This paper will highlight the recent terror-related events and the ramifications they had on the various rights and freedoms of the American and foreign citizens. The 9/11 attack is credited with highlighting some of the heated open deliberation of whether individual protection ought to be surrendered for national security. The governmental issues that took after the assaults provoked the assemblies to enact the United States of America Patriot Act (Bank, 2010). This was intentionally done to give law enforcement agents a legitimate ground to scan for and catch the perpetrators of the terror-related activities. This law raised divergent opinions relating enforcement of individual rights and freedoms at the expense of national security within the country. The parties that opposed the imposition of this Act stated that it had it would have the effect of curtailing their civil liberties that were protected under the constitution and would give the security agencies some leeway to infringe on their rights on the pretense of protecting national security. In other words, this meant that this statute was invalid since it went contrary to the constitution. Individual rights are protected under the American legal regime and should, therefore, be guarded jealously (Mitrano, 2003). The parties that were in support of the law advanced the idea that it was an impossible feat to adequately enjoy the individual rights that people yearned for in a country that was insecure. This, in essence, meant that the national security needed to be provided for first before the country could have the right to individual rights.
National security is among the basic needs that all citizens within the country require for their survival (Lippman, 2017). The same cannot be said about individual protection. Most of the proponents of this right tend to confuse it with social equality that is enshrined in the constitution (Bank, 2010). It is further noted that individual protection is not provided in the constitution and therefore the government is acting within its authority in providing for statutes such as the Patriot Act that tend to ensure that it is able to cater for the security of everyone within its territory.
Proficient Evidence
Information experts embarked on a survey in order to determine which of the two was of utmost necessity between individual protection and national security. The survey was held in 2008 and the latter garnered 53 percent whereas the former stood at 47 percent. They subjects in the study were of the view that the government could take considerable steps to use the personal information about its people only if it was necessary to deter security concerns that would have otherwise affected a considerable number of citizens. This was a means of trying to strike a balance between the individual rights and national security. The government nonetheless was bound to ensure that the personal information it had in its possession needed to be used with utmost care in order not to devolve to unauthorized personnel. The security organs in charge of this information needed to receive adequate funds to ensure that they stored the information safely.
Consequences for International Relations
An inclination to national security over individual protection is additionally delineated courtesy of the solid perspectives communicated by the government in the United States. The United States and the European Union have held consultative discussions with each other. The subject matter of the talks was trying to exclude the European Union residents from the counter-terrorism strategies that have been put in place by the United States on the individuals who visit the nation. The E.U. looks to negotiate a collective agreement that will ensure that it will guarantee that its residents are not subjected to thorough surveillance. In connection with this reaction by the European Union, the United States required that every remote aircraft needed to submit individual data of the people who were on board. This was a measure that was destined to ensure that the terrorists could not get the chance to enter the country. Notwithstanding, the counteraction put in place, the United States has demonstrated that does not intend to negotiate on matters that pertain to national security. This blockade demonstrates that the hard stance that has been taken by the country's security apparatus. This is due to the fact that in the event that national security is secured only then will individual security will be ascertained as well. With as much as the UK has spoken out against deprivation of individual rights, it has also been accused of being perpetrators of the act. A classic example was in the case of A and Others vs. Secretary for the Home Department where the UK deviated from the right to liberty and proceeded to incarcerate non-nationals that they suspected posed a threat to national security (Hamilton, 2006). The right to liberty is premised on the European Convention on Human Rights.
National security is of great importance to various parts of the world
National security is of great importance to various parts of the world and is not only limited to the U.S. The trends that are experienced in other parts of the world likewise demonstrate that national security is accorded a higher level of priority when compared to individual protection. Most of the laws that are enacted within the criminal justice system tend to put matters of national security first (Hamilton, 2006). In Rasul vs. Bush, the matter came up after the president issued an executive decree that the security agents were at liberty to use any means necessary against the perpetrators who planned, aided or executed the 9/11 attacks in the United States (Hamilton, 2006). This led to the incarceration of twelve Kuwaiti citizens and two Australian citizens in at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay. The detainees were not accorded some of the individual rights to get the services of an attorney as enshrined in the Constitution due to the fact that the matter was of national security under the Sixth Amendment (Lippman, 2017). This was contrary to the trial and pre-trial procedures that are envisioned in the criminal justice regime (Lippman, 2017).
A sharp contrast is drawn in Canada where various interest groups have resisted the idea of infringing on the right to privacy at the expense of national security. A Bill that is famously referred to as C-36 gives a judge authority to outlaw the acquisition to or exposure of individual data, regardless of whether it is for national security, national barrier, or any international relations matter (Macklem, n.d.). This bill was designed to ensure that is a balance between the powers accorded to the law enforcement agents and protection of social equality. The government is required to be accountable to its citizens and should not expose them to unnecessary surveillance. Nonetheless, the security agents are permitted to access individual information if it relates to national security. This law further brings in the question of striking a balance between individual rights and national security. It will ensure that the law enforcers are able to investigate potential suspects and apprehend them before they cause grievous harm.
Indiscriminate and Intrusive Nature of Preference to National Security
As the debate on whether or not to give preference to national security over individual protection rages on, the security officers are devising improved ways of acquiring private information of the citizens via the web without necessarily seeking their approval. This personal data is, therefore, conceivable, without the express knowledge of the concerned parties. One of the scholars at the Australian university known as Dr. Clarke advanced the idea that the September 11 attack made this infringement of privacy possible. (Quiddington, 2001). Accentuation on this probability is made on an assumption that the data obtained can be utilized to have an overview of the population for security reasons. There was belief perseverance that the U.S. government could use the pretense of the terror attacks to manifest intrusion on the right to privacy on its citizens. This could be advanced by the reality the there are unified data frameworks that can dissect data and prompt security activities. Clarke holds the view that the agents who are in charge of security might deviate from their duty and start spying on innocent civilians. In the real sense, this will mean that everyone within the country will be subjected to some level of surveillance from the security agents contrary to what they make everyone believes.
The alleged suspects of some of the criminal offenses that are often placed as matters of national security are hardly accorded any of their constitutional rights. Their property and their body are searched without any warrant and thereafter they are incarcerated while some of their property is seized without following the appropriate procedures (Lippman, 2017). Anyone who is associated with them is also treated as a suspect and might also be subjected to some of the unjustified treatment that the alleged perpetrator is charged with. The suspects are also tortured in order to divulge information yet some of these extrajudicial techniques are outlawed not only by the municipal laws but also on the international scene through various instruments that have been ratified by the United States. This is acting contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the constitution (Lippman, 2017).
The circumstance will even be more stringent for outsiders going to the United States. This suggests everyone will be dealt with as a suspect. This is probably going to bring about perplexity for the sake of battling terrorism. Besides, individual rights might be traded off for national security and consequently, the general impact is the country will be more secure. In order for the general public to fully realize their rights, the security measures that have been put in place need to be removed.
Some of the challenges of striking a balance between national security and individual protection are the fact that the sensitive information might reach the wrong people and this might be detrimental to the lives of very many civilians (Quiddington, 2001). Most often the government data is leaked by insiders to the entire world. A classic example is when the WikiLeaks found its way on the public sphere. It is clear that not all security offices are state-possessed. Some are private and in this manner their capacities to deal with insight data are flawed. In this way, the government needs to be very cautious when giving licenses for such operations keeping in mind the end goal to guarantee that citizens are adequately protected. It should also be noted that the entire issue of favoring national security over individual protection may have far-reaching consequences if stringent preparatory structures are not set up.
Conclusion
Taking everything into account, individual protection is vital, and everybody needs to be accorded this privilege. Nonetheless, it is hard to declare whether it precedes national security. This is the underlying reason behind the government's move in the United States to put in place a few laws to permit the law enforcement agents to have the mandate to get to private data for security reasons (Hamilton, 2006). It is likewise right to presume that national security is fundamental, due to the fact that it is given a preferential status compared to individual rights (Hamilton, 2006). However, there will be an individual protection of the rights of citizens only if national security is guaranteed, though on the flipside national security is not assured if individual protection of rights is allowed. Moreover, no data is made open as much as the government's surveillance is concerned. In this way, it true to draw an inference that national security is more important when contrasted to individual protection due to the manner that individuals generally value national security.
References
Bank, T. (2010). The Little Green Data Book 2010 (1st ed.). Washington: World Bank
Publications.
Hamilton, J. (2006). The Delicate Balance Between Civil Liberties and National Security.
Venice.coe.int. Retrieved 13 April 2017, from http://www.venice.coe.int/SACJF/2006_08_MOZ%20Maputo/Hamilton_delicate_balance.htm
Lippman, M. (2017). Criminal Procedure (3rd ed., pp. 163-569). Sage Publications.
Macklem, P. Indigenous difference and the Constitution of Canada (1st ed., pp. 50-82).
University of Toronto Press.
Mitrano, T. (2003). Civil Privacy and National Security Legislation: A Three-Dimensional
View. Retrieved 13 April 2017, from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2003/1/civil-privacy-and-national-security-legislation-a-threedimensional-view
Quiddington, P. (2001). Security vs Privacy. Abc.net.au. Retrieved 12 April 2017, from
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/security/default.htm
