“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”, Benjamin Franklin (Jasper n.pag.). The ruthless quote given by Benjamin Franklin really tells us that the people who give up a little liberty to get a brief moment of safety really end up trading freedom for security. What Franklin did not know is how our liberties would be affected after the September 11th attacks. Why are these Homeland Security Acts and other protection acts so controversial? People that oppose the laws say that they wear away the civil liberties and constitutional protections with irrational searches and seizures. Although, supporters say that the acts are necessary to help the government fight terrorism (Roth n.pag.). Are American citizens giving up freedoms because of the war to terrorism with only the promise of safety? This paper contains information regarding the measures that were taken after September 11th . It shows the perspective of both the pro and con side of the recent legislation. It will also provide some possible solutions to the controversy. There will doubtfully be a quick solution, but some measures must be taken.

The Homeland Security acts have had more than one effect on the way the American people live their lives. During the publicized Muslim registry 83,000 men, with Muslim backgrounds, were forced to register with the government. Those who registered none were formally charged with terrorism. However of those men there were reportedly 11 with terrorist links (U.S. ends Muslim Registry n.pag.). The projects of protection have affected not only foreigners but also people and businesses that already exist n this country. A recent pool that was taken showed how the people felt about government censorship of news organizations. It showed that about 76% strongly to mildly agree that news publishers should not have to get approval from the government to be able to publish a story. Although about 20% strongly to mildly disagree with the ability of news organizations to publish stories freely, and the 3% that was left did not have an opinion (USA Patriot Act n.pag.). However that pool was taken after the September 11th attacks. After the fact the same question was posed and new results were taken. The new results showed that about 69% strongly to mildly agree to the previous question, which is a 7% change out of their favor from the previous results. Also there were about 27% strongly to mildly disagree with the previous question, which is a 7% change in their favor from the previous results, also the 3% that was left did not have an opinion (USA Patriot Act n.pag.). The results of the pools show that the various protection acts have the possibility to hinder the effectiveness of the first amendment of the constitution in the American peoples’ eyes.

Another possible solution is that all of the protection acts be kept with no changes made to them. There are a number of scenarios where the government could find a use for every piece of legislation that is contained in the homeland security acts. For example there are a number of surveillance rules that needed to be updated in order to keep up with new technology, and that the government needed new powers to fight global war on terrorism (Roth n.pag.). Some people might believe that the protection acts will be used by the government for performing illegal surveillance on civilians. Douglas Kmiec (Dean of the Catholic University Law School in Washington D.C.) said that the law was not aimed at average citizens. Except federal powers can always be misused and the public should be on guard for that, besides the intent of the law was not meant to hinder the freedoms or activities of citizens not engaged in any suspect activities (Roth n.pag.). He also said that to obtain the private records of citizens, law enforcement officers must have a request from a high ranking official for intelligence information, and must get a court order approving the request (Roth n.pag.). But there is a negative side to homeland security. Even though the people are safe do they really feel that way? Conducting searches without warrants, military tribunals for U.S. citizens, increased wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, video surveillance, see-through-clothing x-ray machines are some programs that are apart of the Patriot Act II (Jasper n.pag.). So if having all those protection laws does not make people feel safe but make them feel insecure maybe all of them aren’t worth having.

Although there will always be people that say you can’t have it both ways, but in reality there is usually a middle ground to most issues. People who are opposed to changing the legislation would say that it would only work with it all or nothing. If that were all true it would mean that some very extreme laws must stay. For example one aspect of the legislation includes the terrorist information prevention system. What that includes is that it allows citizens to spy on each other and report them if they saw some suspicious activities (Etzioni n.pag.). That part of the legislation is not really needed, this part of

Some topics in this essay:
Patriot Act, II Jasper, Washington DC, Security Acts, Muslim Registry, Hoover FBI, Justice Department, Washington University, United Stated, Nixon Presidency, patriot act, american people, civil liberties, usa patriot act, act npag, homeland security, usa patriot, patriot act npag, september 11th, security acts, homeland security acts, people feel, roth npag, september 11th attacks, muslim registry npag,