Balancing between public safety and civil liberty has become an issue of contention in the United States’ criminal justice. The United States constitution provides vivid constitutional articles that safeguard the civil liberty of individuals. However, it becomes a challenge when upholding public safety, especially after the 9/11 attack. The government, through some of its agencies, gets forced to overlook some of these provisions for the safety of American citizens. This has raised concerns since it does not respect Americans’ right to privacy. For instance, in 2013, an expose by NASA contractor Edward Snowden revealed how NASA has been collecting bulk information on American citizens. In their defense, such oversight of public privacy is important since public safety is crucial. In a sense, the government overlooks some of the constitutional provisions in its fight against terror attacks. However, they do this in good faith, which is understandable. This discussion argues why the government has to overlook some of the constitutional amendments in a bid to maintain public safety.
The fourth amendment of the United States constitution does not allow seizures or searches without probable cause. Whenever a probable cause is presented, it must be presented by the oath of affirmation and should specifically describe the place to be searched. Collection of data amount to a search; this is because the agency responsible for the collection 9of such data is looking for evidence or information leading to a probable cause. In a sense, NASA had the best interest of Americans by searching their phone records and other sorts of data. However, they did not present a probable cause or an oath or affirmation. This shows a clear violation of the fourth amendment.
Similarly, the US freedom Act of 2015 prevents the massive collection of an individual’s private data without probable cause. The Act was meant to improve transparency in security surveillance of the United States. The Act was enacted after a NASA contractor exposed their massive collection of individual’s data and records. This presented a massive violation of civil liberty to privacy. The first amendment of the United States Constitution hinders Congress from making any laws that undermine an individual’s freedom of speech. In this dimension, American citizens have the right to communicate about anything without government interference. This communication can happen face to face or through electronic gadgets such as mobile phones.
In upholding public safety, the government is at liberty to collect intelligence, both domestic and foreign. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 allows the United States government to monitor electronic gadgets to acquire any information that may help them in dealing with terrorism. This would mean even gathering intelligence from foreign countries. The government would have to employ secret services in a foreign land, especially those with religion aligned to terrorism. After the 9/11 attack, Arabic, with professing Islam faith, had a rough time accessing the United States. Though it amounted to discrimination based on religion, the government could have probably prevented the 9/11 attack had they placed secret service in such countries to gather intelligence. This gives more reason why the government has to take some measures when it comes to public safety.
The US Patriotic Act was enacted to unify and strengthening Americans against terrorism. The Act establishes appropriate tools and strategies that will strengthen the fight against terrorism. In a sense, it entails deterring and punishing terrorist activities in the United States. When it comes to the protection of American society, domestic and foreign scrutiny is crucial. The Act requires scrutiny of foreign financial institutions. This helps in flagging suspicious transactions, which could be used to finance terrorist activities. The patriotic Act gives the government the liberty to indulge in some activities considered despising civil liberty. After the 9/11 attack, the government had to take serious measures to prevent such an occurrence. Therefore, the government has to step outside the law to ensure they always stay ahead. This will help plan, strategize, and, most importantly, prevent terrorist attacks, thereby prioritizing public safety.
Overly, it is agreeable the government is overriding some provisions of the constitution while fighting terrorism. In particular, the government is overriding the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments to fight terrorism. For instance, the collection of private information is violating the individual civic right. Besides, the collection of intelligence from a foreign land might cause bad relations between countries. However, all measures have to be considered when it comes to public safety—considering the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. American society cannot handle such a shock anymore. Therefore, the government’s choice to override these constitutional provisions is in good faith. From a human rights activist perception, this choice might seem odd and disrespectful. Many human rights activists have raised concerns regarding the government’s intrusion of privacy. However, when Edward Snowden exposed NASA, many American citizens asserted they understood why the government has to take such measures. The government is responsible for its citizens; therefore, they are at liberty to take any measures to achieve safety.