The Balancing Act: Security and Liberty Post-9/11 Response

In the beginning of the “Attacks on America” segment, it was hard to see a Muslim man holding a sign that read “America’s Graveyard is Afghanistan.” The segment was introduced by saying that terrorism has returned and it has an enormous economic impact. This is sad, but true.

Even though this situation is fictitious, I disagreed with a lot of it. For example, what would happen to America, if someone began injecting toxins into our foods and drinks? Sadly, it would be easy to do, and to hide. It makes me wonder if I should even be buying things at the grocery store right now.

My biggest discrepancy with the situation was when the host, Frank Sesno, said that they were picking up people off the streets and then detaining them in military prisons with no access to lawyers. He stated that there were over a thousand people that were in question and sixty people were picked up. Their families and friends began to protest (using their 1^st Amendment rights). I do not feel this is right…What if some of those people really are innocent? It is not right for them to be taken in, simply because they fit a stereotypical description of a terrorist: most often: Muslim. I understand that it is being done for our protection, but I feel there needs to be more grounds and proof to prove that the person or people being taken in have done something wrong. I do not believe they should be taken in due to their religious beliefs, or physical appearance. Bob Barnes, a lawyer, a military man, and a former assistant judge advocate, agrees with my statements. He says that the situation makes him feel uncomfortable and he doesn’t feel its right. He says that it is a tough and ongoing situation that is hard to deal with. He questions whether the injecting of toxins into the food is a crime or if it is an act of terrorism/war. That answer determines if they use the Rule of Civil Law or the Rule of Military Law. Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration quotes Habeas Corpus; which means the right to protection again illegal imprisonment. He believes that Habeas Corpus is there for judges to supervise and look out for, in any situation.