Discussion Questions: How should the United States government deal with the heightened concern about homegrown violent extremism and the growing concern for the preservation of civil liberties? What are the political and constitutional consequences of counter-terrorism? Lastly, how do we assess the tradeoffs between freedom and security?
1. The United States government will always have to face the homegrown violent extremist because with the internet alone people are able to research just about anything and find their answers. The civil liberties are being violated because you have FBI and CIA looking into what people on doing on the webs. I personally believe that you gave up the right when you decided to goggle whatever it is you’re looking up. It’s also like social media site take Facebook for example people are willing to give up their rights so they can be on Facebook and be able to look or post whatever they want. But just like ever website the owner of that site has a right to delete what they don’t want on it as well. So why can’t the FBI/CIA look into and potentially stop a homegrown extremist from attacking the nation or even just attacking schools, churches, and retail stores like the mall or Wal-Mart. All these locations have had attacks from violent extremist when if they were being watched or monitored those attacks could have been stopped or at least less death could have occurred. From a political and constitutional stand point, consequences of counter-terrorism can vary.  I political stand is to protect and preserve the freedom for the people. Protecting one’s Constitutional rights depends on what the politician’s plans on policies and procedures that could begin to take away those civil rights that were granted and give people the sense of freedom that the nation is built on. Policies and procedures can change everything take the mask wearing and social distancing for Covid-19, you have the people that are okay with it all and are following the rules but then you have the ones that have been protesting or fighting people over the fact that they don’t want to wear a mask. To me personally it’s simple to wear a mask but to others it’s a reason of rights being taken away by mandating it. Working for the military and DHS I personally don’t see freedom and security as a tradeoff. If agencies do their jobs correctly and protect the United States and National Security then freedom wouldn’t be at stake. I believe in freedom but the security measures in place are to help protect that freedom, without the security measures the nation would be under attack like 9/11 or worse.
2. The internal terrorist threat in the United States is operational and complicated, with continuing threats from extreme left- and right-wing extremist groups and radicalization and recruitment efforts by international terrorist groups. Since Sept/11, our nation’s entire security measures and agencies have been revamped and stricter in all levels of government. The intelligence community is significantly restricted in its ability to monitor or participate in domestic political groups secretly. The FBI is this nation’s domestic intelligence agency accountable for managing domestic terrorism, but the FBI does not report to the ODNI. I think the ODNI and the FBI should cooperate, and it may help fill in the gap where one organization cannot. The all around structure of government, by circumscribing coercive activities that might occur within the United States, protects the liberty of citizens in the United States, including foreign persons who are not lawful permanent residents. Take this for example, the military is hemmed in by strict legal rules that significantly reduce its authority to operate domestically and help preserve liberty at home. Many of the political drawbacks of counterterrorism efforts are inadvertent or unimportant. However, some pessimistic spectators might question that governments, predominantly officials of the executive branch, influence the danger of terrorism to magnify their dominances. Many provisions of the Patriot Act were set to conclude at the end of 2005 and, despite opposition from across the political spread and more than 400 state and community resolutions expressing concern about the Patriot Act, Congress reauthorized the law without reforming its most flawed provisions to bring these extraordinary powers back in line with the Constitution. The civil rights and civil liberties of all American citizens, including Arab Americans, African Americans ,Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected. Every effort must be taken to preserve their safety. This announcement possibly bestows a worry between national security and the individual liberty of American citizens. It could be contended that the apparent mention to Americans of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian descent exemplifies that their security and civil liberties are under threat, not only from terrorists but possibly from fellow citizens and even the government elected to defend them.