Abstract
In the history of America, there are several events when national security and civil liberties were challenged. Today, the same thing are happening as an effect of the 9/11 terrorist attack. This paper will explore why national security and civil liberties conflicted.
73183190
National Security vs. Civil Liberties
Introduction
After America was liberated from the British colonies, they were liberated from control as well. In almost all memorable events in American history, fight for freedom was the common goal. Every individual and class of people then struggled for their liberties from government control. The fight never stopped until each citizen were guaranteed freedom.
In the fundamental law of land there are various provisions granting each citizen rights and privileges. This includes, among others, the right to privacy. In many cases that have been decided by the Supreme Court, civil liberties were upheld as superior among any other governmental action. This includes, among others, right to privacy and freedom from government interventions. However, this freedom which has been long before protected by the Constitution is on the verge of destruction. Right after the unforgettable and destructive 9/11 terrorist attack, the administration initiated, at once, programs and other means to repel the terrorism. For reasons of national security, President Bush enacted the USA Patriot Act. However, it was opposed by many due to the detrimental effect it had to the citizen’s civil liberties.
Body
In a democratic country, like US, citizens are armed by civil liberties that protect them from governmental pressures and unwarranted action. More than that these civil liberties are granted to citizens that they may freely enjoy during their existence in a free country. Civil liberties are indeed the essences of democracy. Meanwhile civil liberties refer to “the rights enjoyed by individual over and against government” (Walker, 2004, p.1). It is also the free society’s fundamental element. The fundamental law of the land highly recognizes these rights as it is embodied in First through Tenth Amendment. The Fist Amendment grants the people’s right to expression and religion as it states,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Find Law for Legal Professionals, 2008).
Another important provision guaranteeing civil liberty is the Fourth Amendment, which states;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Find Law for Legal Professionals, 2008).
In addition, civil liberties also encompass the privilege against self- incrimination contained in Fifth Amendment (Find Law for Legal Professionals, 2008). Federal law also protects these civil liberties by virtue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Walker, 2004, p.11). Moreover, state and local laws also recognize and protect the individual rights of the citizens. Generally, these civil liberties being enjoyed by every citizen incorporate the freedoms of assembly, of press, of religion, of speech, of privacy, freedom against discrimination among others.
Since civil liberties are very essential to man’s existence, they are actively protected by some interest group like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Conservative Union, Cato Institute, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) among others (Howard, 2004, p. 5). The ACLU has been named as the nation’s guardian of liberty as it focuses on defending and preserving the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws to all citizens of USA (Howard, 2004, p. 5)
Accordingly, most cases decided by the Supreme Court, these civil liberties were upheld as against any other governmental actions. Many federal and state laws were invalidated because it somehow curtailed some of the civil liberties of the petitioners. The very controversial Pentagon paper was published despite the national security issue being invoked by the government (403 U.S. 713). In the said case, majority opinion sided with the rights of New York Times and other publications of their right to press and of access to public documents over the impeding threat to national security as asserted by the government (403 U.S. 713). Notably after the private and top secret documents, containing the real American soldiers situation in the US- Vietnam War, were published former President Nixon resigned from office (403 U.S. 713). In this case, the Supreme Court proved how powerful civil liberties are.
However, at the height of the 9/11 terrorist attack, these civil liberties being enjoyed and preserved by the nation are on the brink of distortion and being threatened from legal government actions. Due to the innocent lives that were lost at the corrosion of the twin tower and the incessant and threatening bombings, the administration shifted their focus in ensuring national security. The 9/11 has left America devastated and provoked. In order to prevent further acts of terrorism, the government used all means to track and punish the terrorists. Right after the 9/11 attacks, the administration, through John Ashcroft, aggressively arrested almost 2,000 men accused of perpetrating the attack (The Atlantic, 2008). This step also included the circumvention of the accused to their right to counsel and they were further tried by military tribunals. From here, it can be observed that the rights and privileges of the accused were violated by the administration in its move to locate the criminals.
The government has also intensified its military might and set up border patrols to ensure that terrorist will no enter countries that are targeted by the terrorists (Khan, Terrorism and Globalization). In addition, airlines were monitored to ensure that no terrorist entered the territory. Underlying this is the establishment of new rules such as VISA regulation and strict monitoring of foreign travellers (Khan, Terrorism and Globalization). Through this, airline businesses were greatly affected because number of travellers declined. Moreover, bank transactions involving big amount of money were monitored on the ground that it might be used to finance terrorist activities. A mandatory scrutinization of banks was applied leading to the slowing down of the flow of capital (Khan, Terrorism and Globalization). Under this strategy, the right to privacy of the bank customers are jeopardized.
Furthermore, every Arab and Muslims were highly scrutinized before they can travel or transact in banks or in other government agencies. They were also most likely being attributed to terrorism. By this alone, the Muslims and Arabs are being discriminated on account of race. Most importantly, the government aggressively sent its soldiers to Afghanistan and Iraq to eradicate those suspected terrorists. Eventually, this war of the nation became a global war. All these efforts were executed for reason of national security.
Another important move that the government adopted to curb terrorism is the ratification of the USA Patriot Act also known as “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” barely five weeks after the 9/11 (Scheppler, 2005, p.4). By virtue of this act, the governmental agencies are granted with powers which are beyond their normal functions. The act also created new federal offices, task forces, or bureaus, and appropriate or authorizes billions of dollars in spending (Michaels, 2002, p.31). In addition, a new status for federal, state, and local enforcement personnel as investigators of terrorist threats and protectors of the civilian population from the spectre of terrorism is secured (Michaels, 2002, p.32). The national law enforcement and equipments, including communications and surveillance procedures, were improved (Michaels and Bergen). Moreover, any information taken through extensive information gathering, which are related to terrorism, can be disclosed by courts, government lawyers, and intelligence agencies (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2001). The immigrants are also not excused from the act because their movements will be monitored.
The scope of the Patriot Act included various existing federal laws, specifically those dealing with foreign intelligence surveillance, criminal offenses, national security, immigration, and banking (Michaels, 2002, p.31). The act also amended the crime laws and the rules by which the federal courts applied in dealing criminal cases. This act has indeed widened the scope of every agency and made it more powerful in the name of national security.
Nevertheless, no matter how noble its purpose, it is being criticized for threatening the civil liberties. Through the Patriot Act, citizens and noncitizens will be detained immediately upon suspicion or charges of terrorist acts (Sidel, 2007, p.1). The citizen’s right to privacy is also being feared due to the enhanced surveillances, data gathering and profiling of American citizens and nonresident aliens (Sidel, 2007, p.3). Moreover, the act would result to restriction on use and release of official informations, limited access to American society, and a tightened social environment for all (Sidel, 2007, p.3). In addition, bank transactions are not secured of confidentiality. Immigrants as well as travellers will be under a strict scrutiny and extensive monitoring. Furthermore, many will be subjected to unjustifiable criminal prosecutions and probable cases of self- incrimination. Thus, through the act, the civil liberties being enjoyed by the citizens will likely be impaired.
At present, the conflict of between the national security and civil liberties is prevalent. However, the government insist all measures possible to dispel and prevent terrorism. They insist that terrorism this day is graver than previous terrorism. The government highly considers the possibility that there are still terrorists and rearing children within the US territory, who are just hiding from excellent impersonation like ordinary citizens. And the need for a tighter government surviellance is justified (France and Green, Commentary: Security vs. Civil Liberties). The civil liberties of the people are compromised because national security is given paramount importance. Because every citizen needs security, especially those who have witnessed the horrific 9/11 bombing, the civil liberties will have to subordinate to anti- terrorist measures. Despite the oppositions and criticisms from several groups, like ACLU, the government action towards terrorism is firm, but will respect the civil liberties and the national security as well. As what Attorney General John Ashcroft said, “The American people can be assured law enforcement will use these new tools to protect our nation while upholding the sacred liberties expressed in the Constitution” (Tyler, The Patriot Act).
Conclusion
Security and liberty are two most important things for a man living in a democratic world. The unsure security would distract man’s activities in the conduct of his personal and public affairs. Liberty, on the other hand will able him to act according to what he likes without any intervention or control from anybody else, especially from the government. However, when an event arises, one must pave the way for the other. The 9/11 terrorist attack is unforgettable, not only because of horrifying memory it left but also because it has led to the conflict between national security and civil liberties.
References
Electronic Privacy Information Center. (2001). The U.S.A. Patriot Act. Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
Find Law for Legal Professionals. (2008). U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment. Retrieved July 9, 2008 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
France, M. & Green, H. Business Week. (2001, October 1). Commentary: Security vs. Civil Liberties. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_40/b3751724.htm
Howard, B. (2004). The USA Patriot Act of 2001: Balancing Civil Liberties and National Security. California: ABC-CLIO.
Khan, M. Glocal Eye. (2008). Terrorism and Globalization. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.glocaleye.org/terglo.htm
Michaels, W. (2002). No greater threat: America after September 11 And the Rise of a National Security State. New York: Algora Publishing.
Michaels, W. and Van Bergen, J. Truthout. The Usa Patriot Act: One Year Later
Part I. Retrieved July 7,2008, from http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.15D.jvb.cm.usapa.1.htm
Scheppler, B. (2005). The USA Patriot ACT: Antiterror Legislation in Response to 9/11. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Sidel, M. (2007). More secure, less free?: Antiterrorism Policy & Civil Liberties After September 11. University of Michigan Press.
Lavin, T. The Atlantic. (2002, February 6). Security Versus Civil Liberties. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/liberties.htm
Tyler, P. PBS.org. (2003, February 12). The Patriot Act. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/patriot.html
Walker, S. (2004). Civil Liberties in America: A Reference Handbook. California: ABC-CLIO.
Nationalism And Exoticism
During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Nationalism and Exoticism were two contrasting ideas that went beyond musical styles. Basically, Nationalism, as the name implies, is the use of motifs or musical ideas that are associated with or represent a particular country, ethnicity or region (Internet Modern History Sourcebook, 2008). Examples of musical nationalism include folk melodies, folk tunes, and other harmonies and rhythms (Stolba, 1990).
The advocates of this style of music were establishing a sense of identity and were also used it as a very strong political weapon against unfavorable leaders in countries that were experiencing revolutionary changes. (W. W. Norton and Company, 2008). The popular nationalistic composers include Mikhail Glinka ofRussia, who composed A Life for The Tsar; Edward Grieg of Norway, who produced the piano piece Peer Gynt; Jean Sibelius of Finland, who wrote the poem Finlandia, and Antonin Dvorak of Czechoslovakia, who composed the American hit Symphony no. 9 and Slavonic Rhapsodies, among others (Internet Modern History Sourcebook, 2008).
On the other hand, Exoticism in music was a style in which the instruments, melodies, rhythms and other elements of music were used to suggest and evoke the mood and atmosphere of ancient times and far-off lands (Answers.com, 2008). Like nationalism, exoticism is also associated to a certain country, ethnicity or region. However, it often refers to something that is strange yet appealing or something that is unusual yet pleasant (The Imperial Archive, 2008). In short, exoticism in music portrays the “other” things that are not commonly known to man. Popular exotic compositions include Maurice Ravel’s Daphnis et Chloe, Claude Debussy’s Syrinx, which is a flute solo, and Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov’s Capricio espagnol (Answers.com, 2008).
References
Answers.com. (2008). Exoticism. Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://www.answers.com/topic/exoticism.
Internet Modern History Sourcebook. (2008). Music and Nationalism. Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/NATMUSIC.html.
Stolba, K. M. (1990). The Development of Western Music: A History. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, Inc.
The Imperial Archive. (2008). Key Concepts in Post Colonial Studies: Exoticism. Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofEnglish/imperial/key-concepts/Exoticism.htm.
W. W. Norton and Company. (2008). The Romantic Era: Overview. Retrieved July 4, 2008 from http://www.wwnorton.com/college/music/enj9/shorter/romantic/overview.htm.
The EIL Discourse As Natural, Neutral, And Beneficial
Abstract
Pennycook (1994) views the international spreading of English as neutral, natural, and beneficial. The EIL discourse is connected with numerous cultural issues. The implementation of the EIL model in Asian countries reveals the major controversies and benefits of positioning the English language as natural and neutral.
The EIL discourse as natural, neutral, and beneficial
Introduction
“An international language is not the possession of a specific group. It is public property. It is not the vehicle of a single culture. It becomes the vehicle of any culture to which a user applies it” (Bryan, 1994). Although international language is not a possession of a specific group, it should be adjusted to specific cultural conditions. Evidently, the spreading of English has mainly been beneficial, and has created strong mergers with specific cultural contexts. To have a full view of the way English has become an international language, this paper will discuss Pennycook’s view on English as “natural, neutral and beneficial” (Pennycook, 1994). We will discuss the EIL discourse as applied to Asian cultural environment, and the issues which prevent English from effective implementation and use in specific Asian countries.
The EIL discourse in Asian cultural environment
Pennycook (1994) is very objective in that “the English language is so widely used today that a new dynamic has entered the economics of EFL”. Although the English language has already turned into a business commodity, English remains an effective tool of communication in business, too. Pennycook (1994) implies that the British Council’s language policies have been neutral and beneficial, but the central element of Pennycook’s (1994) discussion is the neutrality of English in specific cultural practices. Pennycook (1994) writes that “the dominance of the Western academy in defining the concepts and practices of language teaching is leading to the ever greater incursion of such views into language teaching theory and practice around the world”. Such dominance and imposition of the western educational models create cultural distortions; they compromise and eliminate the neutrality of EIL discourse, the importance of which Pennycook (1994) constantly emphasizes. The neutrality of the EIL discourse stems from the English language being a form of a developmental aid (Pennycook, 1994). As a result of these “aiding approaches”, English is not always appropriately embedded within specific cultural contexts. Singapore is one of the brightest examples of the way Pennycook (1994) views language in the real-life cultural environment. Singapore represents an example of the cultural environment, in which English remains a neutral means of communication, but which generates the controversy between numerous varieties of English. This language controversy subsequently grows and turns into inequality with social coloring: “the variety with the most prestige is typically referred to as Standard English, with all other varieties generally labeled with pejorative terms such as sub-standard or non-standard. […] Such a standard-nonstandard division is basically a reflection of social inequality” (McKay, 2002). In many instances, this social inequality can undermine the neutrality as one of the basic features of the EIL discourse. Although Pennycook (1994) pays special attention to cultural distortions of English, it is not the only issue the EIL faces in international cultural contexts.
The issues of EIL discourse in Asian cultural context
The problem is that the discussed language inequality in Singapore is partly caused by the distorted perceptions of the EIL as a language of colonialism, imperialism, and Western dominance. Through the prism of the world’s history, these language perceptions acquire additional “political taste”. These issues are discussed by Pennycook (1994), and are further developed by numerous language professionals. “Singapore, with no natural resources of her own, early saw the need to exploit fully her geographical location on the great shipping and trading routes between east and West” (Lim, 1991). Simultaneously, Singapore and other Asian countries face a dilemma between English as a critical means of communication and English as the language of colonial masters (Lim, 1991). Although Asia is striving towards social and cultural independence from the Western world, Asians cannot but recognize the importance of the English language as neutral and beneficial for business, market, and intercultural contacts. Asia frequently finds itself in the “influence of American capitalism and all the social, moral, and cultural values it implies” (Lim, 1991). As a result of these political influences, the EIL loses its neutrality; it meets social and cultural opposition, and takes a form of linguistic imperialism, about which Bryan (1994) speaks. However, Asian countries in general, and Singapore in particular, display the changing attitudes towards English, and reveal the new opportunities for discussing new culturally non-discriminative language teaching methodologies.
The majority of issues in the EIL discourse are caused by the conflict between Asian tradition, Western language approaches, and the need to combine them. Traditional approaches to teaching English as a foreign language emphasize the importance and the central meaning of a native speaker, positioning the foreign learner as an outsider, “who struggles to attain acceptance by the target community” (Graddol, 2006). This is the central problem the EIL discourse creates in Japanese cultural environment. Honna & Takeshita (1998) speak about the cultural and communicational problems Japanese students face: “they do not seem to have a correct understanding of how international and how common the language actually is among people throughout the world. In their mind, the native speakers are a big group, while the others do not cut a clear figure”. This is the result of the large EIL misconception which Asian language teachers promote in language teaching environment. They tend to view language as the border which divides speakers into the two unequal groups of native and non-native speakers, and in which “contact makes the dominant language impure by ‘infecting’ it with transfer ‘errors’” (Jenkins, 2005). In the majority of cultural contexts, Asian students face a fear of making mistakes in communication, and prefer speaking their native language.
Graddol (2006) discusses this artificial “purism” and the issues of bilingualism in the EIL discourse. For the majority of Asian countries, bilingualism remains an issue. Pennycook (1994) supports this view by stating that “language teaching methods, which have been exported to the world as scientific, modern, and efficient, have constantly supported the belief in monolingual English teaching”. Bilingualism is not recognized as a natural and normal situation. Furthermore, Asian countries lack a definition of a “mother-tongue” language. “For the next generation of primary schoolchildren in China, for example, many children will be expected to learn in Putonghua rather than their mother tongue” (Graddol, 2006). To further promote English as a language of international communication, a larger shift from native-speaker to any-speaker dominance should take place (Smith, 1983). The EIL discourse should encourage non-chauvinistic attitudes towards mother tongues and non-native English speakers.
The last and probably the most meaningful issue is in the erroneous view that Western teaching methodologies are easily applicable to Asian cultural environments. “The export of the applied linguistic theory and of Western-trained language teachers constantly promotes inappropriate teaching approaches to diverse settings” (Pennycook, 1994). These problems are especially visible in the Asian Islamic cultural environment, when “westernized” English teachers fail to adjust their secular teaching methodologies to the religious needs of the Islamic world (Mazrui, 2006; Washima, Harshita, & Naysmith, 1966). For example, Ozog and Conrad (1989) examine the “silence” information gap which forms the basis of English language teaching in Malay world: while Europeans take silence as an uneasy aspect of any language interaction, Malay community views silence as an appropriate cultural aspect, especially in formal settings (Ozog & Conrad, 1989). This is why to support the status of English as international language western teaching methodologies require major re-focus from standard to more individualized cultural approaches. Individualization is critical for supporting the neutrality and benefits of the EIL discourse in various (often dramatically different) cultural environments.
The EIL discourse as natural, neutral, and beneficial
The spreading of the English language has been extremely beneficial for the whole international language community. Pennycook (1994) underlines the benefits of English language in international communication, and suggests that
English is a commodity in great demand all over the world; it is wanted not only for reasons of friendship and trade with the English-speaking countries but also for other reasons not necessarily connected with any desire to imitate British ways or to understand British history and culture.
It is estimated, that by 2050, 1.9 billion of people will speak English as either the first or the second language (Graddol, 2006). The EIL discourse has been beneficial in helping Asian societies find closer association with the western world on more equal terms. Bryan (1994) pays special attention to bilingualism in the EIL cultural contexts. Bilingualism displays the unambiguous role of the English language, which does not distort unique cultural traditions but enhances more productive patterns of oral communications across various cultures.
Has the spreading of English been as neutral as Pennycook (1994) positions it? Yes, it has, and this viewpoint is also supported by the earlier work of Lim (1991). According to Pennycook (1994), the neutrality of the EIL discourse is expressed through the merger of applied linguistics and development discourses. As a result of this merger, the English teaching practices are gradually developed to achieve the highest scientific modern standards. This merger “sanctifies a range of teaching practices which have their ideological underpinnings firmly based in other Western ideologies” (Pennycook, p. 164). “Over the years, with the widespread use of English came a distinctive western-oriented way of life that grew rapidly in response to its own youthful impulses and those of the larger cosmopolitan world to which it looked” (Lim, 1991). The neutrality of the EIL discourse is also expressed through the vague and disappearing distinctions between native and nonnative speakers. Numerous authors emphasize the critical importance of distinguishing native speakers from non-native (Valdes, 1999; Washima, Harshita, & Naysmith, 1966), but in the EIL discourse these differences are becoming less relevant and further emphasize the neutrality of the English language in international context. The development of new global relationships makes these differences subtler and creates an undeniable image of the English language as neutral and beneficial.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, the EIL discourse is known for being neutral, natural, and beneficial. The benefits of the English language are displayed through the closer associations between the western and Asian cultures. The erasing distinctions between native and nonnative speakers underline the visible neutrality of the English language. Western language teaching methodologies frequently create controversies with the native cultural environments. The changing attitudes towards English as international language create stable communicational relationships between different cultural contexts.
References
Bryan, B. (1994). English in its place. In M. Hayhoe & S. Parker, Who owns English? Open
University Press, pp. 98-107.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. British Council, pp. 81-100.
Honna, N. & Takeshita, Y. (1998). On Japan’s propensity for Native Speaker English: a
change in sight. Asian Englishes, 1(1).
Jenkins, J. (2005). ELF at the gate: the position of English as a Lingua Franca. Linguistic
ideas from the corpora Year, 7(2).
Lim, C. (1991). English for technology – Yes! English for culture – no! A writer’s view on a
continuing Southeast Asian dilemma. In T. Le & M. mc Causland (eds), Language education: Interaction & Development, Launceston: University of Tasmania, pp. 57-69.
Mazrui, Ali A. (2006). Islamic and Western values. Retrieved May 23, 2008 from
http://www.alhewar.com/AliMazrui.htm
McKay, S.L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and
approaches. Oxford University Press.
Ozog, A., & Conrad, K. (1989). English for Islamic purposes – a plea for cross-cultural
consideration. In V. Bickley (ed), Language teaching and learning styles within and across cultures, pp. 398-403.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Ch. 5.
New York: Longman, pp. 145-182.
Smith, Larry E. (1983). English as an international language: No room for linguistic
chauvinism. Pergamon Institute of English, pp. 7-12.
Valdes, G. (1999). Nonnative English speakers: Language bigotry in English mainstream
classrooms. ADFL Bulletin, 31(1), pp. 43-48.
Washima, C.D., Harshita, A.H., & Naysmith, J. (1966). English and Islam in Malaysia:
Resolving the tension? World Englishes, 15 (2), pp. 225-234.