ARTICLES COMPARISON

Comparison of Richard A. Posner “Security versus Civil Liberties” and Elaine Scarry “Acts of Resistance”

Comparison of Richard A. Posner “Security versus Civil Liberties” and Elaine Scarry “Acts of Resistance”

Thesis Statement

This study's focal issue is the comparison and evaluation of the articles by Richard A. Posner and Elaine Scarry, which are Acts of Resistance and security versus Civil Liberties correspondingly.

 

Introduction

In the two years since its route by Congress, on October 25, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act has become the locus of opposition contrary to the unceasing wounds of the Bush-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft triumvirate, as first one community, then two, then eleven, and then 27, then 238 have passed resolutions contrary to it, as have three state legislatures. Many more assemblies and legislatures have preliminary resolutions pending. The notes U.S.A. and the phrase patriot have step-by-step reacquired their previous solidity and sufficiency, as localized and state authorities reanimate the practice of self-rule by resisting the Patriot Act's assault on the individual privacy, free flow of data, and freedom of association that lie at the heart of democracy. Each of the resolutions affirms the town's responsibility to support the constitutional rights of all individuals who reside there, and numerous of them specifically direct policeman and other inhabitants to refrain from bearing out the provisions of the Patriot Act, even when advanced by a federal agent and specifically instructed to manage so.

 

Discussion

In the September 11 terrorist attacks have arrived numerous suggestions for squeezing security; some assesses to that end have currently been taken. Civil libertarians are troubled. They worry that anxieties about nationwide security will lead to an erosion of civil liberties. They offer chronicled demonstrations of presumed overreactions to risks to nationwide security. They heal our living civil liberties—freedom of the press, protections of privacy and of the rights of lawless individual supposes, and the rest—as sacrosanct, asserting that the assault contrary to worldwide terrorism accommodates itself to them. (Posner, 1)

I consider this a deeply wrong set about to the inquiry of balancing liberty and security. The rudimentary error is the prioritizing of liberty. It is an error about law and an error about history. Let me start with law. What we take to be our civil liberties—for demonstration, immunity from apprehend except upon likely origin to accept as factual we've pledged a misdeed, and from prosecution for violating a lawless individual statute enacted after we pledged the act that violates it—were made ...