Maintaining security is one of the paramount responsibilities of the government to its citizens. In the United States, people believe that the government offers security for them without compromising their freedoms. Citizens view the government as a haven where individuals can feel protected under its direction and protection. The government is an entity that is expected to respond and safeguard citizens without worrying about their freedoms. The government utilizes every little power; it has to ensure that the country is not attacked or shaken by external threats. If it operates differently under stress, people may start looking the other way. In light of this, some people may feel unsafe with the government or not sure of its operation. For people to fully receive government security, some individual freedoms may be compromised. People overlooking certain freedoms, the government overstepping boundaries, or compromising people’s freedom can indicate the tension between freedom and security. This paper seeks to elaborate on the relationship between freedom and security. The basic human rights should not be compromised include freedom of speech, movement, and association.
One fundamental reason that individual freedoms may be at risk to receive government security is the fact that it may be necessary. In the article Liberty vs. Security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror; the author discusses the illegal NSA mass surveillance. The disclosure by Edward Snowden is praised as a form of checks and balances. The spying on innocent Americans is compared to the absurdity of snooping on Margie's phone records, the author's aunt (Haynes, 2015). The NSA itself had noted that the program was too expensive and, most importantly, infringed on Americans' civil liberties.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The USA Freedom Act aimed at abolishing this program had passed the House but faced uncertainty in the Senate. Republican senators are divided on this issue, as best shown by both Kentucky senators Majority leader Mitch McConnell who advocates for this program to continue, and Paul Rand, a presidential candidate who wants it to stop. However, US Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who sponsored the bill in the house, does not advocate for a decision based on any side of the spectrum but for a balance between freedom and security (Greenwald, 2014). Being the drafter of the Patriot Act, he believes some aspects of the Patriot Act, which are based on this program, should be used to ensure surveillance that tackles terrorism without infringing human rights.
The second reason people’s individual freedoms may be at risk to receive government security is that people overlook some of their freedoms to ensure people’s safety. Allie Funk and Isabel Linzer discuss the dangers of human rights being limited under the pretext of COVID-19 in their article How the coronavirus could trigger a backslide on freedom worldwide. They show human rights violations related to steps in the response of countries. These include Russia, China, Singapore, and Kyrgyzstan and state that countries with low accountability in guaranteeing human rights may further persecute their political opponents and restrict criticism across social media platforms (Funk & Linzer, 2020). For example, Singapore called for a ban on Facebook access to a government critic's website. In contrast, Kyrgyzstan banned gatherings in Bishkek, where there had been protests against a politician's jailing. On its part, China censured vital terms that seem to go against government propaganda and created an app that monitors individuals' health before arbitrary curtailing movements of individuals and revealing their location to the police. Despite these measures being partly blamed on the pandemic, most seemed to come when those various governments wanted to avoid opposition and spread government propaganda as the sole information available to its citizenry.
In addition to the reasons mentioned above, my primary values of patriotism, loyalty, and achievement show the perspective I have for people to get security from the government, some individual freedoms may be at risk. Some individuals do not want to believe that their freedoms are being compromised by the government to offer security, which lead to loyalty questions. Believing that my freedom is not infringed is something that has not come across in my mind. By accepting that freedoms are overlooked, individuals will notice that the government can do anything to ensure security and meet its agenda. Once citizens have seen the truth, the government makes progress by informing the public what it is doing, which leads to the development of new laws to protect people. This achievement can restore patriotism in people, while others may feel betrayed and have minimal love for their country. Working towards these primary values can make people realize their freedoms at risk and enable the government to formulate better laws and processes.
Conclusively, individuals’ freedoms are always at risk for the government to provide security to the country. Some of the reasons that put people’s freedom at risk entail government overstepping boundaries, compromising people’s freedom, and people overlooking some freedoms. Therefore, individuals should comprehend that their actions affect the way the government operates. The government needs to be transparent with the public regarding laws and the acts it puts in place. More so, the government ought to minimize any errors in these laws and develop more transparent guidelines. Since there will be cases where the government may compromise individual freedoms in times of need, the public should be sensitized and prepared for anything that the government to know what is taking place.
References
Funk, A., & Linzer, I. (2020). How the corona virus could trigger a backslide on freedom around the world. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/16/how-coronavirus-could-trigger-ba ckslide-freedom-around-world/ could trigger a backslide on freedom around the world on October 6, 2020
Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state . Metropolitan Books.
Haynes, D. D. (2015). Liberty vs. security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror.
Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel . Retrieved from
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/liberty-vs-security-an-old-debate-renewed-in-th e-age-of-terror-b99500066z1-303775951.html/?from=global on October 6, 2020
