Security is one of the most critical factors that all citizens in any country need to be given. The peace, health, progress, and other crucial factors of people in a country highly dependent on the security offered. In a state or country, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that people are provided with sufficient security that they deserve. Also, the government needs to ensure that the basics rights of individuals are adhered to. Human beings have some rights and fundamental freedoms that they should freely practice (Suarez, 2017) . These are referred to as human rights, and a good government in place should ensure that these rights and liberties of individuals are practiced. There are various rights accorded to citizens, and the government elected should work to see that these rights are protected.
Thesis
“ The fundamental human rights that the government should not infringe entail freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.”
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
"The Patriotic and Privacy Act"
Entry 1
Source:
Suarez, S. (2017). Is America safer? The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 and what the FBI and NSA have, can, and should be doing. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1888&context=student_scholarship
Quote 1:
"The patriotic acts and privacy have some parts that have been very controversial over the past period."
Reasons
I chose this quote because it leads to more explanation on circumstances under which seizure can be done: Some of the areas of the Act that has been controversial include privacy and government surveillance. The Fourth Amendment of the US constitution, as presented by the author, protects the rights of people to be secured in different areas. It is from here that the Act of security starts.
According to the Fourth Amendment, the citizens of the US have the rights to be secured in their persons and also in different places such as their houses ( Suarez, 2017 ). It is the responsibility of the government to provide this security in different places where people reside. In this way, it will be against the law to get access to an individual's house of a residential area and starts searching. The Act states very well that there should not be unreasonable seizures or searches.
In connection to the law that protects the citizens of the US from unreasonable seizures, some protocols should be followed by law enforcers before any search is down: The Amendment explains very well the procedures that the law enforcers should take to search for an individual's house (Scaramella, 2017). In this case, the house of an individual is regarded as a private entity, and it will be against the rights. It will be an infringement of an individual's right for police to start seizure without any approval done by the court of law (Simpson et al., 2017). One of the conditions under this Act is that the police officers must obtain an order from the court. This order is usually referred to as a "warrant," and it may warrant a search or warrant of arrest.
"Warrant of arrest or seizure" has to be in the form of writing that the owner of the property will be shown before any seizure action begins. With the latest improvements in technology adopted almost in all sectors, it is not a must that the search warrant is made a written form but can be in the form of print media duly signed by the court. Whether in paperwork or print media, the bottom line is that the owner of the property has to be informed. Over the past period, there have been numerous cases where people from different states in the US have accused the police officers of trespassing into their private properties (Suarez, 2017). These are cases where the police officers get into houses or officers to conduct a search or even an arrest without any warrant from the court. According to the author, this is an infringement of people's rights. It is not for police officers to break into a house and conduct a search without any satisfactory explanation.
Issuing of Seizure Warrant by the Court
Entry 2
Source:
Simpson, D., Jensen, V., & Rubing, A. (2017). The City Between Freedom and Security: Contested Public Spaces in the 21st Century . Birkhäuser Verlag. https://adk.elsevierpure.com/da/publications/the-city-between-freedom-and-security-contested-public-spaces-in-
Quote 2
"Probable cause."
This is the second quote, which is also vital when learning about security and freedom. I chose this quote because it illustrates exactly what needs to be achieved before any decision can be made by law enforcers to search private property. In any court, the judges will approve a search warrant in a situation where the police officers show a "probable cause." This must be entirely convincing that the person suspected is engaged in a criminal act. According to Federal law, the law enforcers are required to report to the court on the results of the search (Simpson et al., 2017).
There are statements that the police officers must swear to the courts before they are issued with a seizure or search warrant.
Reasons
The police officers on duty or mandated to take charge of a given case must convince the judge beyond any reasonable doubt that the search or arrest is for the right course (Gray, 2016). The statements that should be sworn by police officers to the judge entail a full description of;
The place exact location or place to be searched
The person to be searched and
The things to be seized
Other more complex forms of surveillance, such as wiretaps, also require the police officers to show a "probable cause" of criminality. In wiretap, the police officers make use of what is known as "pen-trap." This is mostly used in conjunction with telephone companies. The pent-trap has to be given to the police officers by the judge, and this is what will allow the officers to obtain numbers dialed to and from a given specific telephone (Simpson et al., 2017). In such cases, the police officers do not have to show probable cause. What they are required to certify is that the information is required for a criminal proceeding in the court or ongoing investigation.
Response
Before getting the warrant of arrest, the procedures are only in place to make sure that the rights of the citizens of the US are not infringed. In my opinion, the laws were made and passed to protect ordinary citizens. There are different levels of courts in the US, and all of these have been put in place to ensure that the citizens are protected. The courts fall under the judiciary branch of the government, and the main reason why it exists is to see that the rights of people are protected and that people are secured. This is done through the laws which the court interprets to get to know who is wrong and who is right. Generally, the courts are put in place to protect the weak people and ensure that their rights are protected at all costs.
The Patriot Act expands its acts to the security of the citizens of the US beyond the borders. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is giving the FBI more powers to even go beyond the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for an order to search for any tangible information that might pose a security threat to the US and the citizens ( Gray, 2016) . These are mainly searches connected to terrorism activities.
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is one of the most cherished legislations in the constitution of the United States of America. This is where the citizens are given the freedom to talk or speak out their minds. Freedom of speech refers to the First Amendment Rights, and this is where it is found within the US Constitution (Simpson et al., 2017). Despite the fact the freedom of speech exists, the quote that people always ask themselves.
Entry 3
Source
Scaramella, A. (2017). Security and liberty: how was citizen's freedom challenged by terrorism? A USA-EU comparative analysis. http://tesi.luiss.it/19806/1/627262_SCARAMELLA_ANTONIO.pdf
Quote
"Do we have the freedom of speech that we think we do?"
Reasons
I chose this quote because it tends to explain more about freedom and how it should be practiced: If we answer this question, then we will get to know the extent to which we should exercise our freedom of speech. According to this law, the citizens of the US have the right to freely talk or express their opinions in public without any censorship of the form of interference by the government ( Scaramella , 2017).
We are free to express ourselves, but there are certain circumstances where we cannot practice our freedom of speech: As the authors state in the example of a past court case "The City of Chicago v. Alexander 2014," the freedom of speech does not guarantee people to communicate their views at all times and all places.
Entry 4
Source:
Constitutional Rights Foundation (2019): what is the proper balance between National security and individual right. https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-4-a-the-patriot-act-what-is-the-proper-balance-between-national-security-and-individual-rig#:~:text=The%20Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the,warrants%20before%20making%20most%20searches .
Quote:
"Free speech is not always given."
Reasons
This is an important quote, and I chose it because it summarizes all the dos and don'ts when dealing with this particular Act: In a real sense, speech is not always given, especially in cases where it causes harm or where it proves to be offensive to other people.
As much as you can enjoy the freedom of speech and expression, you should not infringe on the rights of other people. Below is a summary of the restrictions on Freedom of Speech. These restrictions are;
a speech which is inciting violence
Use of language which is supporting terrorism act
Defamation of character
Real threats to other people
V. Intellectual property
Summary
To summarize, the government of any nation has a significant role to play in protecting its citizens. It is the full responsibility of the government to ensure that people are safe no matter their social status or ethnicity. Moreover, people have various rights and freedoms well illustrated in the constitution of the US. We have freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and many more. Again, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that citizens enjoy these freedoms without any form of infringement. Although we have our freedoms as citizens, there are some conditions that we should adhere to when practicing our rights to ensure that we do not infringe on the rights of other people and cause violence.
Reference
Constitutional Rights Foundation (2019): what is the proper balance between National security and individual right. https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-4-a-the-patriot-act-what-is-the-proper-balance-between-national-security-and-individual-rig#:~:text=The%20Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the,warrants%20before%20making%20most%20searches .
Suarez, S. (2017). Is America safer? The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 and what the FBI and NSA have, can, and should be doing. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1888&context=student_scholarship
Gray, C. (2016). The Bush Doctrine revisited: the 2006 national security strategy of the USA. Chinese Journal of International Law , 5 (3), 555-578. https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article-abstract/5/3/555/346922
Simpson, D., Jensen, V., & Rubing, A. (2017). The City Between Freedom and Security: Contested Public Spaces in the 21st Century . Birkhäuser Verlag. https://adk.elsevierpure.com/da/publications/the-city-between-freedom-and-security-contested-public-spaces-in-
Scaramella, A. (2017). Security and liberty: how was citizen's freedom challenged by terrorism? A USA-EU comparative analysis. http://tesi.luiss.it/19806/1/627262_SCARAMELLA_ANTONIO.pdf
Zaure, A. (2016). Application of international human rights online-balancing privacy, freedom of information, and national security (Doctoral dissertation, Tartu Ülikool).https://web-proxy.io/proxy/dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/52081/zaure_agnes.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
