Chat with us, powered by LiveChat HLSS508 American Military Civil Liberties in Homeland Security Research Paper | All Paper

Assignment InstructionsThis assignment is the culmination of your crafting of a research paper on a homeland security issue. In Week Four you presented the first three sections of your paper. This week you add the final sections and present the full paper. Be sure to make any changes to your literature based on instructor feedback.The three main sections you should add to the paper for this submission are the Methodology and Research Strategy, Analysis and Findings, section and the Conclusions/Recommendations section.Methodology and Research Strategy: This section provides the reader with a description of how you carried out your qualitative research project, and the variables you identified and analyzed. It describes any special considerations and defines any limitations and terms specific to this project, if necessary. This section can be brief or more complicated, depending on the project, written in 1-2 pages. Analysis and Findings: are not the same as conclusions. In the analysis component of this section you identify how you analyzed the data. The second part is the finding you got from your analysis of the data. The findings are the facts that you developed, not your interpretation of the facts. That interpretation is conducted in the conclusions and recommendations section of the paper. Findings will come from the prior research you examined and your analysis of those prior findings to create new findings for your paper. While there may be some facts that are such that they will stand and translate to your paper, the intent is to create new knowledge, so you will normally analyze the data to create your own findings of what facts that data represents. This section should be at least 2-5 pages.Conclusions and Recommendations: is the section where you give your interpretation of the data. Here you tell the reader what the findings mean. Often the conclusions and recommendations sections will mirror the findings in construct as the researcher tells the reader what that researcher sees as the meaning of that data, their conclusions. Then, drawing on those conclusions, the researcher tells the reader what they believe needs to be done to solve/answer the research question. This section may include recognition of any needs for further research and then finishes with a traditional conclusion to the paper as a whole.Remember, your paper should seek to answer a question that helps to solve the research puzzle you identified.Scoring Rubric: A copy of the complete scoring rubric for this assignment is provided in the Writing Resources module within the course lessons. The following is a synopsis of that rubric.Area of EvaluationMaximum PointsFocus/Thesis20Content/Subject Knowledge20Critical Thinking Skills20Organization of Ideas/Format20Writing Conventions20Technical Requirements:Length: 3-8 additional pages (in addition to your literature review) double spaced, 1″ margins, 12 pitch type in Times New Roman font left justified format.Citations/References: You must use APA style for this assignment.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Mark Velasquez
Privacy and Civil Liberties in Homeland Security
American Military University (HLSS508)
20 April 2019
Nations have the responsibility of ensuring that their citizens are safe and secure. The
United States is no outlier to this concept and has always since time immemorial tried the very
best to make its citizens feel secure. Although the United States never anticipated that terrorist
attacks could deal it a blow, the terrorist act of September 11, 2001, was a wake call for the
Americans. It reminded Americans that the America soil was no longer safe and secure from
terror attacks. The emotional devastation and anguish from this horrific event demanded
something to be done to deter the occurrence of such tragedy in the future. As a result, President
George Walker Bush together with his cabinet hatched the idea of the establishment of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department was established to work in
collaboration with federal agencies and state governments to detect, prepare, protect, respond
and recover from any terrorist attacks or threats in the American soil (Gillen, & Morrison, 2015).
Since its inception, DHS has ensured that the United States is free from terrorist attack and
However, in the name of securing and keeping the country safe, the DHS has put at stake
the privacy as well as civil liberties of the citizens. The issue of control orders by Homeland
Security has been a controversial topic since its inception. At what time is curtailing civil
liberties appropriate for the sake of national security? Does there exist a trade-off between
privacy, civil liberties, and national security? When should individual freedom be curtailed
without them being charged or being brought within the criminal justice system? These questions
matter a lot to the United States citizens as much as they matter to any other person.
Homeland Security in the efforts to combat terrorism and secure the United States
citizens has come up with laws, which allow the government to impose control orders on
individuals suspected of posing a significant terrorist threat. These laws restrict where these
people can go, things they can possess, and the type of interaction and communication they are
supposed to have. Through this, the civil liberties of the citizens, which are provided for in the
Constitution under the Fourth Amendment are curtailed. Over the years, people have debated
whether it is right to trade individual’s liberty for national security. These topics have drawn a lot
of significance and have resulted in many scholars to put forward their views in it.
Although a level ground has not been achieved, different opinions and ideologies are
about the issues of trading privacy and civil liberties with security. Different politicians, authors,
and activists have raised their voice about the issue. Till now, it is not clear whether the
Homeland Security has the power to curtail individuals’ freedom at the expense of national
security or whether it should respect the privacy and civil liberties of the citizens as they are
provided by in the Constitution. To understand this issue and try to get insights for future
research, it becomes imperative to review different literature about the topic of Privacy and Civil
Liberties in Homeland Security.
What is your Research Question? A Hypothesis?
Literature Review
According to Pavone, Santiago-Gomez, and Jaquet-Chifelle (2016), the greatest concern
in the United States security system is the issue of terrorist threats. Whenever there are
possibilities of terrorist threats in the United States, the overall integrity of the nation is always at
stake. This is among the many reasons why the United States has spent a lot of resources and
efforts in coming up with strategies to protect its territory. Before the 9/11 attack and the
eventual establishment of DHS, human freedom and national security were given equal treatment.
Various forms of security and human freedom were interrelated. As Pavone, Santiago Gomez &
Jaquet-Chifelle (2016) observes, national security policies did not jeopardize the freedom from
fear or the freedom from want. In this context, freedom from fear entails human rights. On the
other hand, free from want encompasses human development. Security, human rights and
freedom, and human development were treated as different entities with each given the credit it
deserves (Raab 2017). After the establishment of DHS, the concept of human rights was
incorporated as a minimum core of national security. Currently, security combines the aspects of
human rights and human development (Kaldor, 2006). It is noted that the approach used by DHS
for securing the United States territory encompasses a somewhat flexible policy. In such a policy,
Hayden, Lansford & Watson (2017) notes that material and physical security comes into play.
Bernal (2016) is very critical in addressing the issue of national security, right to privacy,
civil liberties in a society where technological advancements have gone to a higher level. Bernal
(2016) is concerned with how civil liberties are addressed by government agencies in the name
of maintaining national security. The primary aspect concerning civil liberties and privacy
addressed by Bernal (2016) include unlawful or arbitrary interference with an individual’s
privacy. Other aspects include protection of the law, which the law protects, the right oversight
as well as the procedure for safeguarding human rights and freedom. Another dimension
addressed by Bernal (2016) is the issue of mass surveillance. It is noted that many people have
raised their concerns concerning mass surveillance and the implications it has on civil liberties
and privacy.
Among the government security agencies that have been a victim of the criticism raised
concerning mass surveillance is OIA under DHS. DHS has faced criticism from human rights
groups and the media due to its alleged engagement in illegal spying. OIA specifically has
received the largest share of criticism because it has been engaged in the surveillance of
communication records without formal authorization or consent (Bernal 2016).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation released a report that accuses wiretapping phone calls
for local citizens as well as calls emanating from other countries. Although DHS justifies itself
by citing security concerns, the act has been criticized by a section of the population. Opponents
argue that such an act of a violation of human privacy that is provided for in the United States
Constitution. In a bid to ensure that civil liberties and privacy are preserved as provided by the
United States Constitution and established by the Congress, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
has challenged the acts of violation of human rights and privacy by government agencies in court
(EFF 2018). The aim is to ensure that private, political, as well as religious communication is not
illegally surveilled by government agencies. The efforts of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
are a proof enough that many people are opposed to surveillance (an act of invading personal
privacy) and illegal access to personal information by security agents.
Echoing the sentiments of Rosenzweig and Scardaville (2013), on one hand, during war
time the U. S experiences power abuse. On the other hand, in times of peace the U.S has been
noted to be almost unilateral disarmament. It is unlikely the United States is any time going to be
lenient on the war against terrorism. This being the case, Rosenzweig and Scardaville (2013), is
concerned that it is soon going to come to a point where Americans will no longer tolerate the
invasion of their privacy and the deamination of their civil liberties at the expense of national
security. Following the nightclub killings in Orlando, Florida in 2016 and many politicians
voiced their view on the need to infringe on the civil liberties of Americans citizens as well as
the residents. In this regard, Friedersdorf (2016) argue that politicians, as well as other
stakeholders of the same view, miss a vital point. The argument Friedersdorf (2016) put across is
that infringement on the civil liberties would do little if anything to keep the citizens secure and
safer. Besides, he argues that such actions would only assist terror groups in a greater extent
removing freedoms and protection against government abuses.
In an article “Balancing Security and Liberty”, Holmes argues that liberty depends on
security. In this sense, Americans would not claim for civil liberties if there is no adequate
security. Holmes also argues that freedom depends on getting rid of the threat of terrorism. “As
long as terrorist keep threatening our homeland, we will never be free (Holmes 2011).” Although
he is of the idea that it is of great importance for lawmakers to preserve the civil liberties
outlined in the Constitution, he agrees that it is equally important to suspend some civil liberties
temporarily in a state of emergency. The example given here is the right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures. Holmes continues to argue that Americans should be made
to understand that they only have a constitutional right to complete privacy if the lives of others
are not endangered.
In the situation where the lives other people are endangered, the government through its
security agencies including the Homeland security has the mandate to infringe to the citizens’
privacy in a bid to save lives (Holmes, 2011). According to Holmes, Americans should not at
any time refuse to give investigators either from DHS or any other agency access to potentially
critical information because the techniques used to gather such information do not abide by the
constitutional standards. “Unreasonable fear of losing some civil liberties should not be enough
reason to deny the United States under its security agencies the information needed for stopping
the very thing that would ruin the Constitution and its provisions Holmes 2011).” However,
Holmes urges Americans to be cautious not to expose sensitive intelligence information on
In another dimension, most people have voiced their concerns about specific program and
technologies used by government security agencies to safeguard national security. Raab (2017),
argue that technological advancements have significantly influenced privacy issues. The effect of
technology on privacy has been noted to be in the sense that it has been able to make what used
to be an expensive practical approach to be less costly and straightforward. Technology
involving surveillance cameras and drones, for example, has allowed easy access to individual’s
biometric and geological data without the consent. In the same regards, Bernal (2016) argues
that the same way, the DHS has embraced technology in combating terrorist threats with the
United States territory, it should use technology the same way to fight the various forms of
human insecurities. The noted areas where technology needs to be primarily used are areas
involving preservation of personal data and privacy.
Finkelstein et al. (2017) is of the idea that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office,
National Protection and Programs Directorate among other agencies of the DHS are controlled
by technological inventions and innovations. Using the newest technologies, these agencies have
been able to document criminal activities. Satellite technologies have also been widely used to
collect personal data. The argument put across by Finkelstein et al., (2017) concerning this issue
is that some technologies are good in improving national security. However, they should not far
in infringing civil liberties unnecessarily. Such technologies need to use with caution not to
interfere with innocent Americans privacy and freedom which is provided for in the United
States Constitution. Contrary to these sentiments, Bier and Feeney (2018) argue that various
government security agencies including DHS may reach a point of collecting data from social
media platforms. The article notes that although the data obtained from these platforms might be
effective in combating terrorist threats with the American soil, their access and use is a violation
of privacy.
Contrary to the argument of Bier and Feeney (2018), Latonero and Gold, (2015) are of
the idea that national security should be given priority. The argument is that although
information obtained from technological innovation may be considered as a violation of
individual privacy, people should appreciate that such data obtained from technological
innovations have been of importance in specific cases in the fight against crime. In this regard,
through a well though legal process, United States security agencies including the DHS should
embrace the use of technological innovations to make the United States of America secure and
safe (Goldberg 2014). Besides, such technologies can be used to monitor and witness human
insecurity situations. Security agencies are thus urged to embrace data-centric technologies. It is
noted that such technologies will be of great importance in the bid to protect human rights
(Goldberg, 2014).
The sentiments on the use of technology to secure the United States have been stressed
by Bier and Feeney (2018). This article argues that any programs established to offer security to
the citizens should be established while taking into consideration of both civil liberties and
national security. The argument here is that the U.S Constitution has provided for both sides. In
this sense, there is a need for policymakers including the DHS to be respectful individuals
privacy and defend civil liberties. Nevertheless, whenever there is a terrorist threat, Bier and
Feeney (2018) argue that policymakers should not hesitate to curtail some civil liberties by
following the laid procedures. Bier and Feeney (2018) acknowledge that in as much as security
agencies such as DHS have constitutional powers to safeguard the citizens, and they sometimes
do not follow the laid-out procedures and in most cases act imprudent and outside their powers.
According to Rosenzweig and Scardaville (2013), policy programs by government
security agencies should be developed in such a way that the fundamental civil liberties
guaranteed by the United States Constitution are not breached or infringed. Besides, the intrusion
of privacy must be justifiable. By this, it means that the nature, and the importance of any threat
that the policy program addresses should justify the intrusion. In this sense, any policy program
or technology that shows to the justification in diminishing a security threat should be embraced
even if it involves invasion of personal privacy in its operations. For example, strip searches at
airports should be justified not to discourage people from visiting the United States. Finally, the
article argues that if less intrusive means are available that can achieve the same result at a
reasonable comparable cost, policymakers should adopt such.
The primary reason why the federal government has placed a lot of measures and
strategies towards national security is to ensure human lives are kept secure and safe. The DHS
has done tremendously well in securing airlines, pots and connecting dots. Through this, it is
therefore right to say that the DHS has been able to make the United States a safe place to inhabit.
Nevertheless, it not been able to address the issue of privacy and civil liberties. In the name of
securing and keeping the country safe, the DHS has put at stake the privacy as well as civil
liberties of the citizens. Different people have voiced their concerns about this issue.
As it is evident from the different pieces of literature reviewed above, there is no level
ground concerning when and where national security should be a priority over the privacy and
individual’s civil liberties. In today’s world where there are robust technological advancements,
breach of personal privacy and violation of human rights and freedom as provided in the United
States Constitution are prevalent. For DHS to considered effective, it must operate in the context
of provision and promotion of secure and safe American as well as respecting privacy and civil
liberties as provided by the United States Constitution. These two aspects go hand in hand. In
this regard, DHS should provide and promote people-centered security.
Nonetheless, the
appreciation of privacy and civil liberties should not be allowed to jeopardize the fight against
terrorism as well as other forms of domestic threats.
Bernal, P. (2016). Data gathering, surveillance and human rights: recasting the debate. Journal of
Cyber Policy, 1(2), 243-264.
Bier, D. J., & Feeney, M. (2018). Drones on the Border: Efficacy and Privacy Implications. Cato
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2018). NSA Spying.
Finkelstein, E. A., Mansfield, C., Wood, D., Rowe, B., Chay, J., & Ozdemir, S. (2017).
Trade‐Offs Between Civil Liberties and National Security: A Discrete Choice
Experiment. Contemporary economic policy, 35(2), 292-311.
Friedersdorf, C. (2016). Civil Liberties Keep Americans Safe, Retrieved from
Gillen, D., & Morrison, W. G. (2015). Aviation security: costing, pricing, finance, and
performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 48, 1-12.
Goldberg, M.L. (2014). How big data can put war criminals behind bars. UN Dispatch.
Hayden, P., Lansford, T., & Watson, R. P. (2017). America’s war on terror. Routledge.
Holmes, K. (2011). Balancing Security and Liberty, Retrieved from
Kaldor, M. (2006). Human Security: A Relevant Concept? Politique étrangère, (4), 901-914.
Latonero, M. & Gold, Z. (2015). Human Rights & Human Security.
Pavone, V., Santiago Gomez, E., & Jaquet-Chifelle, D. O. (2016). A systemic approach to
security: beyond the tradeoff between security and liberty. Democracy and Security,
12(4), 225-246.
Raab, C. D. (2017). 3. Security, Privacy and Oversight. Security in a Small Nation, 77.
Rosenzweig, P. & Scardaville, M. (2013). The Need to Protect Civil Liberties While Combating
Terrorism: Legal Principles and the Total Information Awareness Program, Retrieved

Purchase answer to see full

error: Content is protected !!