RECONCILING CIVIL RIGHTS AFTER THE 9/11 INCIDENCE: ANALYTICAL ESSAY

When examining civil liberties and their reconciliation with the state security, a contradiction is identified: Freedom of democracy creates a base where terrorism can thrive. Other freedoms such as the freedom of expression, the freedom of association and the freedom of movement are enjoyed in a setting of liberal democracy. In as much as they are a part of human rights, they create a suitable environment where terrorists can plan and execute major acts of violence that are gross enough to not only cause instability or destruction to the structures of the state but also cause shifts in ideological stands. Countless themes can be used to illustrate the complicated juxtaposition of national security and civil liberty as a response to supposed crises. Detention without trial or charge for decades for suspected criminals and extreme invasion of privacy for citizens are considered to be necessary by state governments which have been involved in any kinds of war on terror. Similarly, the contours of the frontal line are also intangible as the enemy. The risk of fighting war on terror is pushing states into declaring a state of emergency on their own jurisdiction. The thought of terrorism is capable of threatening basic human rights and freedoms which make up the characteristics of democracy, civil liberties and human rights. All democratic societies are founded on these fundamental rights and freedoms. A terrorist can only be said to be successful if he successfully persuades a state founded on democracy to ditch its democratic values. This paper therefore discusses how civil liberties can be reconciled with the security demands made post 9/11. In addition, it also discusses the facets of legal response on the jurisdiction to terrorisms, particularly, the response given by The United States of America and Britain after the attack on Twin Towers.