In light of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, a great question is raised. How do we have national security along with civil rights? After Apple refused to grant the FBI with access to the perpetrator's cell phone there was a huge question of, "Is that against human rights?", even though the circumstances? This issue goes much further than just personal cellular devices and extends to social media accounts, private documents, emails, and surveillance footage. Certain freedoms can oppose a risk on places. Should the national security be allowed to monitor our google searches, and our text messages? Would you be willing to give up your rights for a little more sense of safety. In my opinion, yes I would but to an extent. I think the use of monitoring internet usage and phone use is something that shouldn't be a big deal if you have nothing to hide. To go as far as to say "they" watch us through our webcams and phone cameras is certainly an invasion of privacy.
National Security is defined as, "a corporate term covering both national defense and foreign relations of the US. It refers to the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets". In a lot of terrorist attack cases it seems to be that after the fact they go through computers and phones and find things indicating an attack is coming, but it's too late. In an instance where this kind of stuff is being monitored it may have been caught before hand and handled before anything had the chance to happen. When you look at a place like North Korea, its not a place anyone would want to live in but they have never had any terrorist attacks due to extreme monitoring. Im not saying the US needs to take measures like North Korea has but even just a little more of monitoring could change a lot of outcomes for us.
Cilvil Liberties are rights for an individual protected by law from an unjust government. A lot of Americans would be wiling to give up their rights thinking that them being a law-abiding citizen wouldn't be affected by the monitoring. I think thats where giving the Government too much power comes into play. If we were to give the Government extreme power over something like that there is the chance of abuse and neglect towards watching people. I think in most cases our civil liberties should be compromised for our safety.
In wake of the horrific 911 attack on the US the Patriot Act was passed to ensure the appropriate tools required to interfere with any terrorism suspected and to strengthen America as a whole. Since 911 there has been a numerous amount of terrorist attacks against the US including the most recent horrific scene in Las Vegas. It makes me question how effective this Patriot Act really is. Although The Patriot Act is supposed to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by ur Constitution the ethical issue brought into play is the Fourth Amendment which protects "rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". This Amendment provides the privacy for the people while making law enforcement get the proper paperwork called a warrant to conduct a search on private properties. The Patriot Act can allow law enforcement to request search orders on any US citizen suspected in any terrorist activity. I don't think this act compromises any civil liberties. If there is a person suspected of any criminal activity there should be an exception to civil liberties.
All in all I think National Security takes a more important stance in America then Civil Liberties does. Anyone suspected of criminal activity and certainly anyone involved in terrorist activity should be heavily monitored for the safety of others. I think with more monitoring security these tragedies around the US could be intercepted and stopped before the worst comes. I think the question will always remain, would you be comfortable giving up your rights for more security and safety?