¶ … intelligence operations. What role would state and local police play in these operations? What are the limits on their role? Intelligence operations can tremendously aid in the prevention of terrorist and criminal acts. The problem with intelligence gathering is not the efficacy of the data but how it is shared and used. When local and state police are involved in intelligence-gathering operations, concerns related to civil liberties might arise. Arguments against intelligence operations include concerns over surveillance as an infringement on civil liberties.

Given government exists as a social contract in which individual citizens willingly agree to surrender a few individual rights in favor of a broader common good, intelligence gathering makes perfect sense. Intelligence gathering allows the elected government to protect its citizens via the identification of risks, and the mitigation and responses thereto. Therefore, intelligence gathering is undertaken according to the libertarian values upon which the United States and other modern democracies were founded.

The gathering of intelligence may occur without significant infringements on individual liberties, including the right to privacy. However, when local and state police are involved in the process of gathering data such as through surveillance, citizens might become wary. The gathering of intelligence naturally entails monitoring of behavior, and may even include acts such as deception. There are some clear ethical conundrums involved in intelligence gathering.

It is important to delimit the role of all government bodies in collecting intelligence. The basis on which a democratic society is founded is precisely the lack of overarching, tyrannical government rule. Thus, no government should have the right to overstep its boundaries in the interest of intelligence gathering alone. The social contract of government ensures the greatest good for the greatest number, which means that values like freedom and liberty are tantamount even to external threats. After all, those external threats to freedom are similar to the same internal threats to freedom from a government that can too easily abuse its powers of surveillance.

2. Discuss the Patriot Act and what it proposes to do for Homeland Security. Describe the constitutional issues the sections of this act may face and how we can still accomplish our goals within these constitutional limits.

The USA PATRIOT Act was a direct and immediate response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Act freed funding for counterterrorism, effectively creating the Department of Homeland Security and drawing attention to the increased need for domestic security in general. The Patriot Act's most controversial tenets include the increased powers of surveillance, undertaken theoretically to enhance the ability of the government to respond to terrorist threats. Although it does have some potential for abuse, the Patriot Act generally allows Americans to accomplish national security goals within constitutional limits.

Some of the main provisions of the Patriot Act include monitoring of suspected terrorist financing, the mandated detention of suspected terrorists, and the Regional Information Sharing System. Each of these provisions allots a great degree...

Those powers are easily abused, particularly when it comes to infringing on the constitutional right to privacy in the presumed or claimed interests of national security.
Local law enforcement had previously been responsible for responding to criminal acts within their jurisdiction. The Patriot Act federalizes some crimes that are defined as terrorist acts. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this approach, but generally the practice of diverting cases involving suspected terrorism or conspiracy falls within constitutional boundaries.

The goal of preserving national security is generally considered worthy of sacrificing some privacy. As police are being increasingly called upon to cooperate with federal officials to gather intelligence on local suspects, the general body of citizens may come to resent increasing intrusion of government on their lives. Targets of counterterrorism campaigns might feel they are being discriminated against, and the Patriot Act might even result in casualties like loss of livelihood for persons who have been discredited even under false suspicion. The utilitarian values upon which the nation was founded unfortunately does result in such casualties.

3. Discuss the arguments for and against increasing the powers in the executive branch of the government.

Increasing the powers of the executive branch of government is a troubling prospect for many Americans. Too much executive power was precisely why the rebel army decided to rise up against the British crown and create the new nation. Americans mistrust executive power because it can too easily morph into tyranny. Therefore, arguments against increasing the powers in the executive government are generally grounded and rooted in American values.

Most Americans do acknowledge, however reluctantly, that a strong executive branch empowers leaders to make decisions that can promote the common welfare. A strong executive branch of government at the local level allows top-down decisions to be made unequivocally. Similarly, federal executive powers enhance government stability.

Yet the balance of powers in government is what truly enhances stability. An executive branch that becomes too powerful needs the opposing force of legislative and judicial branches of government. The judicial branch can single-handedly decide that actions of the executive are within constitutional boundaries. Similarly, the legislative branch can see to it that laws are put in place to protect the rights of citizens over the right of the elite few.

Strong executive powers can lead to constitutional conflicts, including infringements on Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. Profiling is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but Americans have the right to fair and equitable treatment under the law. Likewise, the diversion of terrorist cases to military tribunals potentially infringes on the rights of individuals to a fair trial. Even though terrorism has become formidable enough to warrant radical responses, those responses must still reflect constitutional values. One potential means of reconciliation may be to create a tertiary system of trying terrorist suspects.

4.…