1

The United States: The Land of the Free, The Home of the Surveilled

National security has always been a valuable asset to the United States, but a pattern has

emerged that national security is somehow more important than civil liberties. Jeffery J. Mondak,

a political science professor at the University of Illinois, and Jon Hurwitz, a professor at the

University of Pittsburgh, discussed how national security gets valued over civil liberties time and

again. 5 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 70 percent of people believed that it was necessary

to give up civil liberties to fight terror (Mondak and Hurwitz 1). American government officials

have started to value safety over the rights and liberties of citizens. This way of thinking has lead

to the infringement upon basic civil liberties.

By valuing national security over civil liberties, the United States parallels an early post

neo-Nazi Germany in its way of thinking. According to Mary Nolan, a history professor at New

York University, after World War II, Germany passed “The Basic Law” which encroached on

freedom of speech and the press, the right to organize and protest, and lawyer-client relations.

The Basic Law was meant to aid in preventing extremism from right wing groups who were still

in support of the Nazis. According to Mary Nolan, it remains debatable whether the measures

were necessary to support West Germany’s democracy or if liberties prevailed in spite of them

(Nolan 1). Germany valued its security over its citizens’ liberties, and the American government

has mirrored this mindset by engaging in mass surveillance and promoting rhetoric that deems

certain people groups dangerous.

Elected representatives have made it appear as if the sacrifice of civil liberties is

necessary in attaining national security. Christopher Cohrs, a psychology professor at Jacobs

University, observed that the citizens of the United States were subject to the strong rhetoric
 2

coming from “right wing authoritarians” after 9/11. This made way for large public support for

the “USA Patriot Act”, which essentially allowed the FBI to access medical records, student

records, and other private documents without a warrant. Cohrs explained that because of a

predisposition to conform to the social norms and to listen to an authoritarian leadership, citizens

overlook the negative consequences of laws. (Cohrs 2). Americans have valued conformity over

sensibility. Conformity led to officials violating civil liberties, whereas sensibility dictates that

instead of believing irrational rhetoric, solutions to real issues at hand can be found by

cooperating with each other. By continuing to support rhetoric that demonizes citizens,

infringing upon civil liberties seems justifiable according to our behavior, when in reality

Americans need to come together as a country to solve a multitude of national security threats.

The endless wars overseas have warranted heightened security efforts, but that has meant

more surveillance, and other means of infringing on civil liberties. Leighton Woodhouse, an

independent journalist, interviewed a former State Department official who openly admitted that

the surveillance goes “far past” the gathering of phone records, but banking records and travel

information may also be on the line. He also mentioned that he does not believe that Verizon is

the only phone carrier being surveilled (Woodhouse 1). Barbara Starr, a correspondent to the

Pentagon, reinforced the belief of civil liberty infringement by writing about Edward Snowden.

Snowden released information that Americans were being surveilled by the United States

through computer and phone usage. He was an NSA official, but after releasing this information

to the public, he fled the country and is now wanted for treason against the United States (Starr

1). Because of Edward Snowden’s bravery to stand up for the citizens of the United States, he

has exposed the magnitude of corruption that is plaguing the American government.
 3

More recently, the infringement on civil liberties for national security has lost its support

among Americans. ​According to Carol Doherty, the director at the Pew Research Center, 54% of

Americans said that it was not okay to give up civil liberties for national security, while 40% said

it was okay (Doherty 1). As time progresses, technology, ideas, and the American people have

changed. This country was founded on principles that reflected a democratic system which is not

exemplified in violating civil liberties.

The ways in which the United States has tried to attain national security have been less

than effective. According to Robin Koerner,​ a political commentator for the Huffington Post and

an author: ​Dianne Feinstein, the senior senator from California, and her ilk justify security over

the privacy of Americans. Feinstein said that mass data collection could have prevented 9/11, but

the morals behind that logic are incorrect, as well as the math. According to Feinstein,

American’s privacy, or a lack thereof, is less important that the 2,996 innocent lives lost on

9/11, but when you factor in 7000 American lives lost abroad (and the 100s of thousands of other

lives), because of wars, which are a product of this mass data collection, it begs the question: is

Feinstein correct? (Koerner 1). The answer to that, based on logic, math, and morality, is no. The

reason being that if Americans are trying to prevent lives being lost, like on 9/11, by engaging in

wars that are causing the loss of life to be more than double than that of 9/11 casualties, then

Americans should not be participating in those wars in the first place.

There is instances in which, in a court of law, civil liberties are upheld against national

security. In an article written by Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law

School, he discusses the instances in which civil liberties are valued over national security. For

example, on February 19th, 1942 President Roosevelt signed a law, “which authorized the Army
 4

to designate military areas from which any or all persons may be excluded.” This meant that

Japanese Americans were detained, following Pearl Harbor, simply because they were of

Japanese descent (Stone 3). This was ultimately overturned because of its obvious lack of

lawfulness and support because of deep ethical concerns. Infringing on civil liberties is not

something new to America, but it seems that the country is destined to repeat history.

The most modern examples of civil liberty infringement is President Trump’s rhetoric

regarding a southern border wall and discrimination against minority travellers. Yevgenia

Kleiner, a lawyer in New York City, wrote about the increased ethnic and racial profiling that is

being implemented in airports. For example: AirTran officials ordered 9 Muslims off of a plane

simply because of their ethnicity (Kleiner 2). President Trump has also been reinforcing this way

of thinking with his plans to build a wall along the southern border. Jeremy Diamond, a political

reporter for CNN, wrote an article in which he explains how Trump plans to construct a wall,

boost the deportation force, and appropriate funds from congress to do it (Diamond 1). Trump

has created a narrative that encourages racism and bigotry (whether it be Mexicans,

Mexican-Americans, or Muslims). A southern border wall sends a message of isolation, but the

United States was founded on principles that tout inclusivity. Whether it’s discrimination in

traveling or rhetoric about a wall and mass deportations, both infringe on the civil liberties of

millions of Americans.

The United States of America is not a third world nation or a dictatorship. For hundreds

of years, America has exemplified a standard of acceptance and understanding, but recently it

has failed what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The civil liberties of Americans must come

first to ensure that what it means to be an inclusive country is fully grasped in citizen’s minds.
 5

Ultimately, alienating the American people, by participating in civil liberty infringement, will

not aid in the war on terror or any other national security threat, it will only serve to feed into it.
 6

Bibliography

Cohrs, J. Christopher, et al. "Effects Of Right-Wing Authoritarianism And Threat From

Terrorism On Restriction Of Civil Liberties." ​Analyses Of Social Issues & Public Policy

5.1 (2005): 263-276. ​Academic Search Complete​. Web. 12 Jan. 2017.

Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump Orders Construction of Border Wall, Boosts Deportation Force."

CNN​. CNN, 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 27 Jan. 2017.

Doherty, Carrol . “Balancing Act: National Security and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 Era.” ​Pew

Research Center​. Pew Research Center, 7 June 2013. Web. 13 Jan. 2017.

Kleiner, Yevgenia S. "Racial Profiling In The Name Of National Security: Protecting Minority

Travelers' Civil Liberties In The Age Of Terrorism." ​Boston College Third World Law

Journal​ 30.1 (2010): 103-144. ​Academic Search Complete​. Web. 2

Koerner, Robin. "Privacy Vs. Security: a False Dichotomy." ​Huffington Post​. Huffington Post,

05 Apr. 2014. Web. 24 Jan. 2017.

MONDAK, JEFFERY J., and JON HURWITZ. "Examining The Terror Exception: Terrorism

And Commitments To Civil Liberties." ​Public Opinion Quarterly​ 76.2 (2012): 193-213.

Business Source Complete​. Web. 11 Jan. 2017.

Nolan, Mary. "Pushing The Defensive Wall Of The State Forward: Terrorism And Civil

Liberties In Germany." ​New German Critique​ 117 (2012): 109-133. ​Academic Search

Complete​. Web. 11 Jan. 2017.

Stone, Geoffrey R. "National Security V. Civil Liberties." ​California Law Review​ 95.6 (2007):

2203-2212. ​Business Source Complete​. Web. 26 Jan. 2017.

 7

Starr, Barbara. "Man Behind NSA Leaks Says He Did It to Safeguard Privacy, Liberty." ​CNN​.

CNN, 23 June 2013. Web. 31 Jan. 2017.

Woodhouse, Leighton. “‘Endless Wars Overseas, Infringing on Civil Liberties at Home’: An

Interview on NSA Surveillance With Former State Department Official Matthew Hoh.”

The Huffington Post​. The Huffington Post, 11 Aug. 2013. Web.