“Governments are justified in circumventing civil laws when doing so is vital to the protection of national security.”
Write an essay in which you take a position on the statement above. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true.
The question to which extent a noble end justifies the means is a constant debate among laymen and philosophers alike, and one of the most important applications of this problem is to which extent a government may circumvent otherwise applicable civil laws if it is considered to be in the interest of national security. While a completely benign government, in theory, could use this power in the interest of the people, the circumstances of the real world renders a government that strictly adheres to its contitutional limits the preferable option.
In order to argue that governments can use any means necessary in the protection of national security, it must be ignored or overlooked that the government will not use this power in any other potentially pernicious ways. Even though a government might be elected by the people, the people also elect them within the rules of the game that is the constitution of the country. A government that was elected to rule does not by implication have the authority to circumvent civil laws, but the people only give the government, by definition, the permisssion to rule within the limits set by the coutry’s constitution. Leaders that are free to make make arbitrary rule is the antithesis to a government that is stable and, consequently, works in the long-term interest of national security.
Someone on the other side of the debate might refer to a classical example in moral philosophy, where a terrorist has been captured, and is known to have information that would save lives if it were obtained, and the only way to get information form the terrorist was to torture him. Intuitively, people argue that it would be permissible to torture the terrorist in this case, with which I agree, as the benefits outweigh the costs by several orders of magnitude in this theoretical example.
However, this argument is not analogous to the real-world situation, as the premise of getting to know a definite answer and the terrorist being definitely guilty are both far from the real-world problem states face. Governments that use this justification are much more likely to torture innocent people than they are to save lives from ordinary citizens, and consequently commit crimes on their own that both cause tremendous harm and undermine legitimacy of the government. If the “terrorist” in the example is not in fact a terrorist, but only a suspect, or turns out to be innocent, the government commits an atrocious human rights abuse through using torture, as I am sure most people would agree with.
It also applies to the real world that governments that circumvent civil ways whenever they consider it plausible will grow more and more authoritarian. The premise of a well-functioning government by the people and for the people is that the rules under which it governs are known and publically available to the people, and a government that has the de facto right to circumvent the laws that it does not deem apt for its purposes is not a government of the people at all.
Therefore, a government must always stay within its limits given to it by its people. No excuses of “national security” or any other pretenses should serve as sufficient explanations. If the government wants additioanl authority to use more controversial means in the event of an emergency, it should first ask for this authority by the people it purports to serve, as that is the only long-term solution that will guarantee government stability and a mutually beneficial symbiosis between state and people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tutional limits the preferable option. In order to argue that governments can u...
^^^
Line 2, column 648, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: make
... constitution. Leaders that are free to make make arbitrary rule is the antithesis to a g...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g-term interest of national security. Someone on the other side of the debate ...
^^^
Line 3, column 249, Rule ID: FROM_FORM[4]
Message: Did you mean 'from'?
Suggestion: from
...ed, and the only way to get information form the terrorist was to torture him. Intui...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...agnitude in this theoretical example. However, this argument is not analogous ...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... am sure most people would agree with. It also applies to the real world that g...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ot a government of the people at all. Therefore, a government must always stay...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, however, if, look, may, so, therefore, well, while, as to, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 11.3162921348 203% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 48.0 33.0505617978 145% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 79.0 58.6224719101 135% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 12.9106741573 217% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2974.0 2235.4752809 133% => OK
No of words: 589.0 442.535393258 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04923599321 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92639038232 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09131484946 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456706281834 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 950.4 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 9.0 1.77640449438 507% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 36.0 23.0359550562 156% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 70.7232447202 60.3974514979 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 185.875 118.986275619 156% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.8125 23.4991977007 157% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.21951772744 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170156637499 0.243740707755 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0611691347074 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0477198046055 0.0758088955206 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0940739218909 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.043864113352 0.0667264976115 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.8 14.1392134831 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.94 48.8420337079 72% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.92365168539 164% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.3 12.1743820225 142% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 100.480337079 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 11.8971910112 168% => OK
gunning_fog: 16.4 11.2143820225 146% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.