Is there a trade-off between security (from terrorism) and liberty?

This essay argues that we must be prepared to sacrifice traditional liberties to defeat terrorism. First, the traditional liberty of freedom of speech must be sacrificed. Second, we must also be prepared to sacrifice the right to a fair trial if we are to defeat terrorism. Third, the right to a private life might also need to be sacrificed. This essay defines a ‘traditional liberty’ as a right or guarantee that an individual is entitled to.

It can be argued that we must be prepared to sacrifice the traditional liberty of freedom of speech to defeat terrorism. This is since various terrorist groups use this freedom of speech as a springboard and an excuse for their actions. For instance, freedom of speech and expression enables posts promoting and applauding the works of terrorist groups on social media platforms to be released. This mass of support then fosters and encourages terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda to commit further atrocities against humanity. Therefore, social media posts supporting and inciting terrorism is one example demonstrating that freedom of speech is being misused. Hence, sacrificing this traditional liberty of freedom of speech will ensure that terrorist groups are unable to gain support. However, some may contend that sacrificing freedom of speech to defeat terrorism is an unnecessary and disproportionate means. They say that it is a complete violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It can also be seen as being incompatible with a democratic society. Despite this, it can be said that terrorism itself goes against fundamental democratic values and traditional liberties. Therefore, sacrificing freedom of speech is a small trade-off to defeating terrorism. 

One can also argue that we must be prepared to sacrifice our right to a fair trial to defeat terrorism. For example, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, sanctions for suspects involved in terrorist have proven to be an effective method. By indefinitely detaining suspects and restricting rights to a free trial, it will therefore increase the likelihood of preventing terrorism, as it ensures greater security and control. It may be argued that sacrificing the right to a free trial is an ineffective and completely unjust method to defeat terrorism. This is because in the 2008 Belmarsh Case, the Home Secretary’s indefinite detention of suspected terrorists actually failed to identify terrorism threats. Moreover, some argue that the absence of a fair trial is a violation of the fundamental Rule of Law. Additionally, the right to a fair trial is one of the three clauses preserved from the forty-three original clauses of the Magna Carta. And so, some contend that we should not sacrifice this foundational and traditional liberty. However, this can be countered with the fact that this liberty should only be sacrificed in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect is a threat. For instance, we should be prepared to sacrifice this traditional liberty if an emergency situation arises, such as imminent terrorist threats. 

Furthermore, one might contend that the traditional liberty we have of a right to privacy should be sacrificed to defeat terrorism. For example, the government should be able to intercept and monitor calls and emails. In the 1970s, the US Court declared that surveillance over post, mail and telecommunications was essential in preserving  interests of national security. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights also found that the monitoring of suspected terrorists using GPS did not violate their right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 8 of the HRA 1998. So, by sacrificing the right to privacy, the government will essentially be able to effectively and swiftly identify and target terrorist individuals and organisations. Conversely, many argue that this blatantly goes against Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides us with a right to private life. Consequently, a government should not be able to carry out these actions, as this not only a breach of our basic human rights, but is also morally incorrect. Although Article 8 of the Convention outlines that everyone has the right to private life, the fight against terrorism should allow for special surveillance methods, like intercepting phone calls, to be used to collect information which might help defeat terrorism by aiding in the arrest and prosecution of suspected terrorists. These methods should also be carried out only if they are authorised and legitimate. 

In conclusion, we should be prepared to sacrifice traditional liberties such as freedom of speech, right to a free trial, and right to privacy to defeat terrorism. Terrorism is a direct threat to various human rights. For instance, security is a basic liberty and so the government must ensure they defeat terrorism in order to provide this, even if this is carried out by sacrificing traditional liberties. However, it might be that we only sacrifice these liberties in circumstances where there is substantial evidence of a terrorist threat.