Secured Freedom
Oh. My. God. I can't believe I started, and finished this entire essay today! Quotes and all. It's not perfect but we're only using this in a workshop today so I won't get graded, I'll get points for participating instead. Hells to the yeah.
Any suggestions are welcome though. I am looking to edit this before I turn it in on the 15th.
Laura Mathis
Ryan Bacchia
English 110
December 3rd, 2009
Secured Freedom
Security in the United States is extremely important due to the constant threat of terrorist attacks. Although racial profiling and increasing security may seem unfair and discriminatory, without this type of security terrorists would attack again. If security were to be left to the American people instead, paranoia may ensue. At the same time, there must a balance between security and liberty, not only to reassure the public that human rights are still intact, but also to prevent those in control from terrorizing people with constant fear. The security provided must help protect America and not be too strict or too loose.
The government should increase security. The American people will still have freedom, just more of an annoyance when profiling. Even though things may seem like less of a threat, there is always a risk of a terrorist attack. Mark Krikorian demonstrates this in Safetey Through Immigration Contol, “Our enemies have repeatedly exercised this option of inserting terrorists be exploring weaknesses in our immigration system” (461). If weaknesses like these are taken care of, the terrorists will not be able to use them to their advantage, and the country would be safer. Although the American people will have to deal with the government being more involved and profile, it is just a mere inconvenience. Linda Chavez demonstrates this in Everything Isn’t Racial Profiling, “Sure it’s unpleasant to be a suspect when you’re innocent. But it’s worse to overlook terrorists because we ignored their persistent characteristics” (458). The events of the terrorist attack on American soil on September 11th, 2001 have happened almost nine years ago, the threat of an attack is still real.
Without security terrorists would attack again. Melanie Phillips points out in the Daily Mail, “Quite simply, the threat posed by Islamist terrorism is so completely different from previous terrorist threats that it requires new attitudes and new procedures to defend ourselves against it” (12). Even after we increased security after September 11th the United States has still had multiple threats and has had to act last minute, when the government should be more prepared. Oh the other hand, if America decreases security, it would be right back to where it started before the attacks, and would risk terrorists infiltrating the country. The war that spawned from those attacks have provoked the government to increase security, and even though some liberties must be given sacrificed, it is vital for the survival of the American people.
However, if we decreased security and focused more on liberty, security would be left to the American people instead, and as a result paranoia may ensue. Although we would have more liberty legally, people would feel less safe and be imprisoned mentally by the constant threat of terrorism. For example, during the mid 1900’s America was constantly afraid of nuclear attacks from enemy forces. The country was gripped with fear and the people always had the thought in the back of their minds that they were in constant danger. With increased security that fear is almost completely wiped out, yet some liberties must be sacrificed.
There should be a balance between security and liberty. With too much security liberty can be threatened, but at the same time with too much liberty the American people will feel less secure. It is hard to find a balance, but that is why the country should work together with the government, and vote for what is fair and agreed upon. The article Obama balance of security and liberty; US administration acknowledges need for legitimacy points out, “Mr. Obama may not yet have got the balance right, but in acknowledging painful trade-offs and the need to justify himself at every step, he is putting US policy on a sounder basis.” ("Obama balance of security and liberty; US administration acknowledges need for legitimacy”, par. 6). Although it may seem at times that the President focuses on one more than the other, one must understand that there are sacrifices that need to be considered with either decision. These are sacrifices that the citizens must be willing to partake in to ensure that the security provided will continue to keep the country safe.
The government must focus more on security, rather than liberty. The American people will still have freedom, just more of an annoyance when profiling. Even though things may seem like less of a threat, there is always a risk of a terrorist attack. Mark Krikorian demonstrates this in Safetey Through Immigration Contol, “Our enemies have repeatedly exercised this option of inserting terrorists be exploring weaknesses in our immigration system” (461). Without the assistance, which can sometimes be considered and invasion of privacy, from the government our borders are left open to the threat of terrorism, like a welcome mat for enemies. Racial profiling, and storing information about suspects that fit the profile of a criminal are necessary tools to help prevent terrorism, without them it would be near impossible to prevent future attacks.
Any suggestions are welcome though. I am looking to edit this before I turn it in on the 15th.
Laura Mathis
Ryan Bacchia
English 110
December 3rd, 2009
Secured Freedom
Security in the United States is extremely important due to the constant threat of terrorist attacks. Although racial profiling and increasing security may seem unfair and discriminatory, without this type of security terrorists would attack again. If security were to be left to the American people instead, paranoia may ensue. At the same time, there must a balance between security and liberty, not only to reassure the public that human rights are still intact, but also to prevent those in control from terrorizing people with constant fear. The security provided must help protect America and not be too strict or too loose.
The government should increase security. The American people will still have freedom, just more of an annoyance when profiling. Even though things may seem like less of a threat, there is always a risk of a terrorist attack. Mark Krikorian demonstrates this in Safetey Through Immigration Contol, “Our enemies have repeatedly exercised this option of inserting terrorists be exploring weaknesses in our immigration system” (461). If weaknesses like these are taken care of, the terrorists will not be able to use them to their advantage, and the country would be safer. Although the American people will have to deal with the government being more involved and profile, it is just a mere inconvenience. Linda Chavez demonstrates this in Everything Isn’t Racial Profiling, “Sure it’s unpleasant to be a suspect when you’re innocent. But it’s worse to overlook terrorists because we ignored their persistent characteristics” (458). The events of the terrorist attack on American soil on September 11th, 2001 have happened almost nine years ago, the threat of an attack is still real.
Without security terrorists would attack again. Melanie Phillips points out in the Daily Mail, “Quite simply, the threat posed by Islamist terrorism is so completely different from previous terrorist threats that it requires new attitudes and new procedures to defend ourselves against it” (12). Even after we increased security after September 11th the United States has still had multiple threats and has had to act last minute, when the government should be more prepared. Oh the other hand, if America decreases security, it would be right back to where it started before the attacks, and would risk terrorists infiltrating the country. The war that spawned from those attacks have provoked the government to increase security, and even though some liberties must be given sacrificed, it is vital for the survival of the American people.
However, if we decreased security and focused more on liberty, security would be left to the American people instead, and as a result paranoia may ensue. Although we would have more liberty legally, people would feel less safe and be imprisoned mentally by the constant threat of terrorism. For example, during the mid 1900’s America was constantly afraid of nuclear attacks from enemy forces. The country was gripped with fear and the people always had the thought in the back of their minds that they were in constant danger. With increased security that fear is almost completely wiped out, yet some liberties must be sacrificed.
There should be a balance between security and liberty. With too much security liberty can be threatened, but at the same time with too much liberty the American people will feel less secure. It is hard to find a balance, but that is why the country should work together with the government, and vote for what is fair and agreed upon. The article Obama balance of security and liberty; US administration acknowledges need for legitimacy points out, “Mr. Obama may not yet have got the balance right, but in acknowledging painful trade-offs and the need to justify himself at every step, he is putting US policy on a sounder basis.” ("Obama balance of security and liberty; US administration acknowledges need for legitimacy”, par. 6). Although it may seem at times that the President focuses on one more than the other, one must understand that there are sacrifices that need to be considered with either decision. These are sacrifices that the citizens must be willing to partake in to ensure that the security provided will continue to keep the country safe.
The government must focus more on security, rather than liberty. The American people will still have freedom, just more of an annoyance when profiling. Even though things may seem like less of a threat, there is always a risk of a terrorist attack. Mark Krikorian demonstrates this in Safetey Through Immigration Contol, “Our enemies have repeatedly exercised this option of inserting terrorists be exploring weaknesses in our immigration system” (461). Without the assistance, which can sometimes be considered and invasion of privacy, from the government our borders are left open to the threat of terrorism, like a welcome mat for enemies. Racial profiling, and storing information about suspects that fit the profile of a criminal are necessary tools to help prevent terrorism, without them it would be near impossible to prevent future attacks.