Summary: Last Tuesday, the de Blasio administration of New York said that New York City would join Strong Cities Network, an organization focused on diminishing the recruiting power of terrorist groups in the United States. Many civil rights groups criticized this move, claiming that it encouraged racial profiling and deprived ethnic citizens of their basic rights. The New York Civil Liberties Union and numerous civil rights lawyers believed that NYC's participation placed an unfair focus on law-abiding American Muslims and urged the mayor to reconsider. However, de Blasio responded by saying "when we undermine intolerance, we undermine extremism and violence", expressing his unwillingness to change his decision. Instead he tried to compensate with a number of outreach programs, including "the designation of two Muslim holy days as citywide school holidays". Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab-American Association of New York voiced her concern that the New York administration would bring back some of the counterterrorism practices of the Bloomberg Administration, "involving the surveillance of mosques and city Muslims groups". As a result of these dissenters, mayor de Blasio's actions were met with skepticism.
Questions: Do you believe that the government can infringe on personal liberties on the grounds of protection against terrorism? Do you think de Blasio's decision is constitutionally acceptable? Do you believe that surveillance and other methods used by the Strong Cities Network are the right ways to deal with terrorism? If not, how can the government appropriately combat terrorism in a way that does not intrude on citizens' rights?
I believe that the government can infringe on personal liberties by declaring a war on terrorism. It would be similar to how the government can infringe on peoples' rights during times of war. While I believe that de Blasio's decision can be defended as constitutionally acceptable, I think there are better ways to address terrorism recruiting other than strict surveillance. The government should put more focus into convincing targets of recruiters as to why they should not join terrorist groups in the same and opposing way of how recruiters convince their targets.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe government should have the ability to infringe on personal liberties when it comes to terrorism. Similar to times of war, terrorism is a serious thing and should therefore be dealt with strictly. I believe that de Blasio's decision is constitutionally acceptable and was a good decision because when it is suspected that peoples lives may be in danger, a little surveillance is alright.
ReplyDelete-LUKE BEIZER
I believe that the government only has the right to infringe on personal liberties on the grounds of protection against terrorism when there is clear and present danger/and obvious threat on our society. If we choose to discriminate heavily against people from those cultures we will be stirring up more conflict that may have been completely unnecessary. I agree with de Blasio in that we are undermining the importance of protecting racism, but similar to what I stated earlier if we were to designate days out of the year to honor the Muslim culture it would create conflict rather than reduce it. I don't believe that there is any correct way to combat terrorism other than to be strict on this subject without personally hurting Muslims and others who may be seen as a threat.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not believe that the government has a right to infringe on personal liberties, especially in the case of terrorism. Because terrorism is a broad and difficult term to define, extending these powers to the government would lead to broad and stretched interpretations of terrorism, enabling the government to use these supposed threats to infringe upon personal liberties when convenient. Although terrorism poses a real danger, our personal liberties should be sacrificed, especially when the goal of preventing such threats is to preserve our freedoms.
ReplyDelete*should not
DeleteI believe that the government can infringe on personal liberties if it is done in a way that is applied equally to everybody. This means the government cannot racially profile, and instead needs to develop other ways to combat terrorism. If the government racially profiles muslims, they will be infringing and overstepping their limitations. It is only acceptable for the government to infringe when there is a "clear and present danger", backed by evidence that is not tainted by racial profiling.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government can infringe on personal liberties if it is done in a way that is applied equally to everybody. This means the government cannot racially profile, and instead needs to develop other ways to combat terrorism. If the government racially profiles muslims, they will be infringing and overstepping their limitations. It is only acceptable for the government to infringe when there is a "clear and present danger", backed by evidence that is not tainted by racial profiling.
ReplyDeleteI believe the government has used the claim of terrorism to constantly impeach on its reach in privacy matters. Terrorism is much less likely than the government would have you believe. They are using fear tactics to advance their own agendas.
ReplyDeleteThe government infringing a war on terrorism is a good thing because although they are decreasing our personal liberties they are protecting us and any sane human is against terrorism. There are other ways to tackle the issue of terrorism than severe surveillance.
ReplyDeleteYes, the government can infringe on the personal liberties of some people as long as it helps protect the liberty of more people. His decision toes the line of being Constitutionally accepted, but any possibility of saving lives makes the surveillance more acceptable. The surveillance is a good method of stopping terrorism as it is aimed to act before something bad happens, not after, which is very important. De Blasio is obviously trying to make the surveillance seem less racist by implementing the 2 holy days into the calendar, which shows the good intentions of this network.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may seem that it would be unconstitutional to infringe on personal liberties for any reason whatsoever, the government does reserve the right to do what is necessary for the safety of its citizens as it fights for the greater good, which is not based on race, income, or any other demographic that may be used as a factor to determine whose needs come before another's. While it may seem to be an attack, or for the most part racial profiling, the surveillance of these people is not constitutionally wrong by any means since it keeps everything else in check and no harm is done.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may seem that it would be unconstitutional to infringe on personal liberties for any reason whatsoever, the government does reserve the right to do what is necessary for the safety of its citizens as it fights for the greater good, which is not based on race, income, or any other demographic that may be used as a factor to determine whose needs come before another's. While it may seem to be an attack, or for the most part racial profiling, the surveillance of these people is not constitutionally wrong by any means since it keeps everything else in check and no harm is done.
ReplyDelete