Moreover, evidence gathered in criminal case can now be more easily shared - without a court order - for "intelligence" purposes with intelligence agencies such as the CIA even if the information is about an American citizen ("Threats to Civil Liberties").
The exercise of rights generates costs, and it is these costs that are often in conflict. Davis and Silver agree that a proper balance must be found between freedom and control and that civil liberties cannot simply be trodden upon.
Lewis cites research documenting that the general public's fears had diminished within a month's time, to the point where less than one-third of Americans were highly concerned about terrorism or safety in their communities, after September 11th.
This lack of fear equates to a lesser desire for increased security, and therefore a reluctance to give up such fundamental civic liberties like privacy. The cost, at this point, far outweighs the results.
Conclusion:
In the end, the world has changed since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, especially for Americans. No longer is there the feeling of utter security within the invisible borders. And, steps do need to be taken to ensure that attacks like that cannot happen again. "The fundamental purposes of the federal government, as enumerated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, are to 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty....' (Lewis). However, these duties often come into conflict with one another, when events of "national import, urgent peril, and...
Since the events of September 11th, providing common defense and securing the blessings of
liberty have been at war, with the loss of liberty being at the mercy of common defense.
As Davis and Silver quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, following the attacks on September 11th, "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country.... It will cause us to re-examine some of our laws pertaining to criminal surveillance, wiretapping,
immigration, and so on." Justice O'Connor had clear insight into what a post-September 11th
society would be like. Personal freedoms have been restricted and laws allowing
law enforcement and
government agencies to conduct covert surveillance have been loosened, all in the name of the War Against Terror. However, millions of people having their civil liberties encroached upon, to better facilitate the capture of a scant few, is not the answer.
Since September 11th, increased governmental secrecy, erosion of fundamental checks and balances, and a loss of
privacy have seriously undermined the principles this great nation was founded upon.
References
Davis, D. & Sliver, B. "Civil Liberties vs. Security:
Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on
America." American Journal of Political Science 48(1) Jan 2005: 28-46. JSTOR. JSTOR. University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. November 29, 2006 http://www.jstor.org.
Lewis, C. "The Clash Between Security and Liberty in the U.S. Response to Terror." Public Administration Review. Jan/Feb 2005: 18-30. ProQuest database. ProQuest. University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. November 29, 2006 http://proquest.umi.com.
Stephens, T. "Civil Liberties after September 11: Background of a Crisis." Guild Practitioner 61(1) Winter 2004: 4. ProQuest database. ProQuest. University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. November 29, 2006 http://proquest.umi.com.
Threats to Civil Liberties Post September 11th: Secrecy, Erosion of Privacy, Danger of Unchecked Government. No date. ACLU. November 29, 2006 http://www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/14346prs20011214.html.
