Civil Liberties: The Core of American Values Civil liberties and man’s natural rights are the foundation on which all other laws of the United States are built on. In the 17th century, John Locke expressed his radical belief that government was morally obligated to serve the people and protect their rights of life, liberty and property. When a government infringed upon these rights, the people had legitimate cause to revolt against the established order. The founder fathers took this philosophy to heart, shaping their beliefs regarding the principles that would become the core values of the United States. Civil liberties were put into the Bill of Rights so that no American government could ever take away the freedoms the founding fathers
…show more content…
Too much order can lead to tyranny, a state in which the people are not free to make decisions about the private aspects of their lives. Protecting civil liberties thus requires a balance between individual liberty and public order. This can be related to the report on airports new security. With terrorism screening in airports, it is not taking away liberties, but only protecting your safety. After 9/11 especially, which changed the government’s view of our safety and how fragile the nation is if under attack, security became much more intense (Rumsfeld). One chooses to go to the airport, and the security takes extra effort to not take away any liberties, but respecting freedoms, for example right to freedom of religion, by being respectful to religious outfits when screening for danger. This demonstrates the government working to make sure citizens are given the civil liberties such as right to privacy and right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of your property too. However, the government is responsible for the safety of its citizens …show more content…
The Bill of Rights was left a little ambiguous for a reason. Congress represents the people, and without Congress, no one else can take away the liberties. In certain circumstances the government found it necessary at times to restrict rights. In one circumstance, in the first article, Lincoln wanted to restrict freedom of speech and press and also suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Another time, the government banned magazines for expressing antiwar sentiment. Although the government was acting in their mind for the better of America, they learned they cannot infringe on the rights of Americans (Moyers). Along the same lines, the articles about the torture of suspected terrorists were not taking away any rights of those captured, because they were not citizens, but one could fear they could use similar, and horrendous, tactics on American citizens without government knowledge (Ashkenas). The government did not know the whole story about CIA with the terrorist interrogations. There needs to be transparency in government funded organizations so that no civil liberties are infringed upon
Too much order can lead to tyranny, a state in which the people are not free to make decisions about the private aspects of their lives. Protecting civil liberties thus requires a balance between individual liberty and public order. This can be related to the report on airports new security. With terrorism screening in airports, it is not taking away liberties, but only protecting your safety. After 9/11 especially, which changed the government’s view of our safety and how fragile the nation is if under attack, security became much more intense (Rumsfeld). One chooses to go to the airport, and the security takes extra effort to not take away any liberties, but respecting freedoms, for example right to freedom of religion, by being respectful to religious outfits when screening for danger. This demonstrates the government working to make sure citizens are given the civil liberties such as right to privacy and right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of your property too. However, the government is responsible for the safety of its citizens …show more content…
The Bill of Rights was left a little ambiguous for a reason. Congress represents the people, and without Congress, no one else can take away the liberties. In certain circumstances the government found it necessary at times to restrict rights. In one circumstance, in the first article, Lincoln wanted to restrict freedom of speech and press and also suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Another time, the government banned magazines for expressing antiwar sentiment. Although the government was acting in their mind for the better of America, they learned they cannot infringe on the rights of Americans (Moyers). Along the same lines, the articles about the torture of suspected terrorists were not taking away any rights of those captured, because they were not citizens, but one could fear they could use similar, and horrendous, tactics on American citizens without government knowledge (Ashkenas). The government did not know the whole story about CIA with the terrorist interrogations. There needs to be transparency in government funded organizations so that no civil liberties are infringed upon