harlan logo
Balancing Civil Liberties and National Security

We agree that more national security is needed to help prevent another terrorist attack. The government should not be able to over use the new provisions, they still have to respect our privacy.
Sec. 215 allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations. This has positives and negatives. It makes it easier for the U.S. to detect terrorist attacks, but this could also be used against innocent patrons.
Sec. 213 allows “sneak and peek” search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe. There are also pros and cons to this. This can allow authorities to search the property of drug dealers and other criminals without notice and seize illegal things. This is good, but these act are supposed to help prevent terror crimes, not just try to take out random criminals.
We think that these provisions adequately balance the need to protect civil liberties against the need for robust in national security. Yes there is an appropriate balance between national security and civil liberties. However we need to make sure that the balance continues. I don’t think that the balance shift during wartime unless there has been a threat made on the United States during war. We think that the PATRIOT Act is a good thing but we need to make sure that we keep it balanced between national security and civil liberties. We don’t need the national security to interfere big time in our civil liberties or the other way around.

Clapper v. Amnesty International (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance and Government Secrets)

In the case of Clapper v. Amnesty International, FISA is using a method of ruling through a Foreign Intelligence Security Court, which has been deemed a “secret court.”  This has led to much controversy due to the uncertainty of whether or not processes and rulings are being carried out in a constitutional and conventional manner.  Although this may be a legitimate concern, it is not realistic nor intelligent to force the court to release this classified information.  The majority of these hearings deal with public safety and the national security.  By allowing the public access to this material, it will be internationally-known information.  There is no reason why the public must know this information.  More harm than good will ever come from allowing these processes to be public knowledge.
There are a multitude of different agencies present in the United States today that are allowed to deem information as “classified.”  There is a reason behind this.  When the national security is at stake, the necessity of knowing information is diminished and more governmental secrecy is practiced.  This should not be surprising, given the circumstances.  Additionally, the Plaintiffs are arguing that the United States government violated their constitutional rights.  However, the Plaintiffs are neither United States citizens nor on a territory that is in “complete and official United States jurisdiction” and because of this, are not guaranteed the same rights as citizens of the country.  The Suspension Clause also states that the government reserves the power to suspend rights during times of war or rebellion.  The United States has been in a war on terror for the past 11 years, and therefore, has the right to keep certain information classified and out of the reach of the public.

Reprehensible Enough?

I believe that this is a sound way to approach this legal issue, when does a persons private property become open to the police officers investigation. I think that the minute someone else s life is put in danger because of that persons actions police officers can expose it. If someone is being harmed inside of a house but police are not allowed to intervene because it is private property they cannot do their job which is to protect and serve. I think that most criminals intend for their illegal activities to remain private so that they do not get caught but if they are harming someone else or putting someone else in danger the police should be able to intervene. I do not think that growing marijuana falls into this category however, he is growing this plant illegally yes but it is of no harm to anyone else, however if he was selling it to others then I believe the police could step in. I also think that if the police go through the proper channels to obtain a search warrant and find marijuana he should be arrested but they should not be able to show up on his doorstep with a drug dog and use that as information to help obtain a warrant.