In the sixth edition of his Terrorism and Homeland Security textbook, White (2009, p. 459) notes:

Contains unread posts

Must post first.

Week Three – Discussion Two: Protecting America from Terrorism versus Civil Liberties

In the sixth edition of his Terrorism and Homeland Security textbook, White (2009, p. 459) notes:

“There are always trade-offs when considering security. This applies to social structures and physical aspects of security. It is possible to use force to create a social structure where people can have a limited fear of crime and illegal violence. The underside is that people in such societies must often fear the powers of the civil government. Crime can be reduced through aggressive apprehension and punishment of criminals, but when the government goes beyond legal norms, people no longer fear only criminals; they for the government that is supposed to protect their rights (Giroux, 2002).”

White (2000, p. 460) continues his discussion of civil liberties by stating:

“Decreasing civil liberties limits individual freedom and increases governmental power. It may increase protection from terrorism, but it increases citizen vulnerability to the abuse of governmental power.”

In short, the objective is to achieve a balance between domestic security and civil liberties. However, this balance is often a moving target and difficult to reach. Considering this concept, answer the following questions.

Are the ideals of civil liberty protection and domestic security opposing in nature? Why or why not?

What are the factors that influence whether our society is more favorable to domestic security measures (on the part of the government) or more demanding of civil liberties?

Can we truly achieve a balance between domestic security and civil liberties? Why or why not?

White, J. (2009). Terrorism and homeland security (6th Ed). Cengage Learning.

You must start a thread before you can read and reply to other threads