The issues surrounding civil liberties and national security were not widely debated around the country immediately following the attacks on September 11th. An example of this is seen in the lack of debate and dissent in the beginning of the controversy surrounding the U.S.A. Patriot Act, implemented just six weeks after September 11th, which made many changes to the way the government could monitor citizens[1].  Some of these changes included widening of wire tap authority and detainment of people suspected of holding expired visas for an indefinite amount of time[2].

      When evaluating the balance between civil liberties and national security, it is important to remember that putting freedoms on hold for an indefinite amount of time in a crisis may jeopardize the ability of our nation to possess these rights in the future. As Richard C. Leone, president of the Century Foundation[3] and faculty of Princeton University, states “The struggle against terrorism could continue for generations, and we run the risk of finding ourselves on a slippery slope, making decisions in which freedoms that are set aside for the emergency become permanently lost to us. In the end, the freedoms we abridge in the interest of security will be largely the result of choices that we, not the terrorists make.”[4] To live in fear, as Leone implies, is letting the terrorists win their war.

      However, there are arguments against Leone’s ideas. Common arguments for national security measures, such as the Patriot Act, are that it is a necessity to give up rights in order to have security. Journalist Mona Charen writes, “We should relinquish some liberty in exchange for security.”[5]  She explains that she would rather err on the side of caution and be wrong than to ignore something that could be potentially dangerous. This sentiment misses the point concerning the debate. The point is that politicians and the government should not be able to relinquish freedom whenever it is most convenient for them. Giving up rights is a very serious issue. Our nation should always be cognizant of the precedents set by policies we implement.  

      National security has been a major concern after the terrorist attacks in 2001. Leone mentions some of the ways the nation is dealing with the attacks. He states “reorganizing major portions of the government, launching a new military build-up,  taking direct action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere, imposing countless additional security measures, seeking better intelligence, hardening possible targets…and introducing significant changes in the rules governing the justice system, press access and civil liberties.”[6] as some of the ways the nation is dealing with the tragedy.  Two examples are the U.S.A. Patriot Act and the practice of racial profiling that are explored more in depth in the next sections.