I'm writing this editorial for a $2000 college scholarship. It must be 500 to 600 words; it runs 573 at the moment. Any comments or suggestions on how to strengthen my editorial are appreciated. As I tried to throw in a few chuckles, I am especially interested in any ideas on how to add another dash of humor somewhere in there. (Yes, I am a republican. I am not looking for you to tell me my views are wrong as "feedback." It won't improve the paper.) Thanks for reading! Love, Stephen. ---T-H-E---Q-U-E-S-T-I-O-N------------------------- After the attacks of September 11, 2001, life for America changed. Among those changes were increased security measures and what some people consider to be an invasion of individual rights. In order for American citizens, aliens, and foreign travelers in the United States to be more secure, should certain rights be restricted? How would you balance the need to protect our national security against terrorism and the government?s obligation to respect individual rights? Using the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as documents, statutes (past and current), and Supreme Court decisions, defend your ideas. ---M-Y---E-D-I-T-O-R-I-A-L-------------------------- NATIONAL SECURITY V. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS by Stephen Bush The attacks of September 11, 2001, changed America forever as terrorists killed thousands of innocent people in an unanticipated strike on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Lest the Twin Cities be targeted next, those responsible for national defense really should try to prevent future terrorism in America. As a concerned student, I believe it is reasonable to restrict certain individual rights in order to increase national security. As early as the Preamble to the Constitution, America?s founding fathers recognized the importance of national security, encouraging their successors to ?insure domestic tranquility [and] provide for the common defense.? Without a reasonable level of security, Americans like you and I are easy targets for terrorists, and we all know that our individual rights are worthless six feet underground. Fortunately, our Constitution allows for national security without an unjust compromise of our freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. In the wake of September 11, the government is acting properly in using past court rulings to justify its efforts to increase security in America. For a quick example, just look at Terry v. Ohio. While still respecting our Fourth Amendment rights, this precedent justifies the ?stop and frisk? searches performed on people suspected of doing illegal stuff, like terrorism. On the flip side, the decision in Mapp v. Ohio gave us the exclusionary rule, which disallows illegally obtained evidence in court. In ways such as these, the government can balance the scales between achieving a healthy level of security and protecting our individual rights. Another permissible effort to improve our national security was the government?s questioning of certain Arab-Americans after September 11 to assist in its intelligence efforts. Some say this procedure qualifies as racial profiling, referencing the extended internment of Japanese-Americans permitted by Korematsu v. United States to boost their argument. However, the government now realizes that the Korematsu case is a prime example of wartime excess and is playing its cards correctly this time around. Simply questioning Arab-Americans and not detaining them in internment camps leaves their Constitutional rights intact and helps to boost national security. Perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation to be passed since September 11 is the USA Patriot Act. Opponents of the act, passed by Congress in October of 2001, object strongly to many of its provisions, which supply the government with a wide array of investigative tools to protect against terrorism. As with any legislation, there is certainly potential for misapplication or abuse of the USA Patriot Act, and we as citizens have a responsibility to ensure that the government applies it in our country?s best interests. In this way, any future court decisions over alleged abuse of the USA Patriot Act will serve to strengthen its Constitutional provisions and weed out any flaws it may have. Undoubtedly, we know the September 11 attacks were acts of war, executed by enemies whose goal remains to destroy our American way of life. In these uncertain times, I believe our government has no greater responsibility than to protect us from the misguided actions of these bloodthirsty terrorists. In the long run, I am confident that we as Americans will benefit most from a strong effort to increase national security, even if we must temporarily relinquish some of our individual rights for this common good. As terrorist threats to national security are reduced over time, we can take full advantage of our Constitutional rights in a safer and stronger America.
