The article, A Post-9/11 Conundrum, has largely addressed various aspects of civil liberties. The author has highlighted issues relating to the safeguarding of the rights of individuals concerning the expression of personal convictions. Furthermore, the author has discussed the allowable levels of government interference on matters relating to individuals’ approaches regarding their preferences in the private sphere. The author addresses various aspects of civil liberties while referencing the United States Constitution since it provides the major framework for the protection to civil liberties. First, the author highlights the issue relating to the right to privacy. The implementation of the FISA Amendment Act promoted government’s infringement on people’s privacy. The author views this act in the aspect of disregard for the constitution, which addresses the right to privacy on the Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. These two amendments describe the limits concerning the government’s powers (Kutulas, 2006). In this regard, the constitution describes actions that the government should not engage in. The Ninth Amendment requires the implementation of certain rights specified in the constitution to respect the rights retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment describes the powers not defined or prohibited within the constitution as belonging to states or the people. Thus, the implementation of the FISA Act is in violation of the constitution concerning the two amendments. The adoption of this act is an invasion of people’s privacy. Although comprehensive surveillance is crucial in the aspect of national security, its implementation is pointless if it amounts to a violation of the people’s rights in order to attain enhanced security.
Secondly, the author highlights the issue concerning unlawful detention. The promotion of indefinite detention of terrorism suspects is in violation to the freedom of equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause in the constitution prohibits the government from establishing laws that promote discrimination concerning their application to individuals within the government’s jurisdiction (Tocqueville & Goldhammer, 2004). Every individual has a right to the appropriate process defined within the law regardless of his or her race or religion. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that the law applies similarly to individuals under similar conditions. Depending on the evidence available concerning a particular suspect, the suspect should face charges before a court, or be released from detention if there is the lack of substantial evidence. Indefinite detention of suspects without trial is unjustifiable since such an approach applies merely in a war zone, and the prisoners of war remain in detention only during the war. The detention of individuals suspected to support groups or forces that are hostile to the United States creates a loophole that encourages unwarranted arrests considering the wide scope within which individuals may seem to support terrorism. The deep intertwine between Islam faith and terrorist groups leaves Muslims vulnerable to detentions. Such an approach is likely to promote discrimination and cause conflicts between different faiths. It amounts to the violation of the First Amendment, which protects individuals’ freedom to religion and expression from interference by the government.
Various aspects highlighted by the author portray a constitution that has scantly defined rules concerning the scope of civil liberties and their protection. The provisions regarding the right to privacy are subject to different interpretation and thus may introduce bias in certain cases. In this regard, the author supports a comprehensive review of various acts and laws to establish their observance of the United States constitution. The implementation of laws that violate various provisions within the constitution is an indication that such laws do not serve the people’s interests, but those of the government. The author’s assertion that the adoption of the FISA Act is a promotion of the Bush administration’s violation of Americans’ privacy protected by the constitution raises doubts concerning the government’s adherence to the stipulations of the constitution.