**ANSWER THE DISCUSSION QUESTION 250 WORDS MIN** Discussion Questions: How should the United States government deal with the heightened concern about homegrown violent extremism and the growing concern for the preservation of civil liberties? What are the political and constitutional consequences of counter-terrorism? Lastly, how do we assess the tradeoffs between freedom and security?   ***REPLY TO EACH POST 100 WORDS MIN EACH*** 1. The United States government will always have to face the homegrown violent extremist because with the internet alone people are able to research just about anything and find their answers. The civil liberties are being violated because you have FBI and CIA looking into what people on doing on the webs. I personally believe that you gave up the right when you decided to goggle whatever it is you’re looking up. It’s also like social media site take Facebook for example people are willing to give up their rights so they can be on Facebook and be able to look or post whatever they want. But just like ever website the owner of that site has a right to delete what they don’t want on it as well. So why can’t the FBI/CIA look into and potentially stop a homegrown extremist from attacking the nation or even just attacking schools, churches, and retail stores like the mall or Wal-Mart. All these locations have had attacks from violent extremist when if they were being watched or monitored those attacks could have been stopped or at least less death could have occurred. From a political and constitutional stand point, consequences of counter-terrorism can vary.  I political stand is to protect and preserve the freedom for the people. Protecting one’s Constitutional rights depends on what the politician’s plans on policies and procedures that could begin to take away those civil rights that were granted and give people the sense of freedom that the nation is built on. Policies and procedures can change everything take the mask wearing and social distancing for Covid-19, you have the people that are okay with it all and are following the rules but then you have the ones that have been protesting or fighting people over the fact that they don’t want to wear a mask. To me personally it’s simple to wear a mask but to others it’s a reason of rights being taken away by mandating it. Working for the military and DHS I personally don’t see freedom and security as a tradeoff. If agencies do their jobs correctly and protect the United States and National Security then freedom wouldn’t be at stake. I believe in freedom but the security measures in place are to help protect that freedom, without the security measures the nation would be under attack like 9/11 or worse. 2. The internal terrorist threat in the United States is operational and complicated, with continuing threats from extreme left- and right-wing extremist groups and radicalization and recruitment efforts by international terrorist groups. Since Sept/11, our.

1. **ANSWER THE DISCUSSION QUESTION 250 WORDS
MIN**
Discussion Questions:
How should the United States government deal with the
heightened concern about homegrown violent extremism and the
growing concern for the preservation of civil liberties? What are
the political and constitutional consequences of counter-
terrorism? Lastly, how do we assess the tradeoffs between
freedom and security?
***REPLY TO EACH POST 100 WORDS MIN EACH***
1. The United States government will always have to face the
homegrown violent extremist because with the internet alone
people are able to research just about anything and find their
answers. The civil liberties are being violated because you have
FBI and CIA looking into what people on doing on the webs. I
personally believe that you gave up the right when you decided
to goggle whatever it is you’re looking up. It’s also like social
media site take Facebook for example people are willing to give
up their rights so they can be on Facebook and be able to look
or post whatever they want. But just like ever website the owner
of that site has a right to delete what they don’t want on it as
well. So why can’t the FBI/CIA look into and potentially stop a
homegrown extremist from attacking the nation or even just
attacking schools, churches, and retail stores like the mall or
Wal-Mart. All these locations have had attacks from violent

2. extremist when if they were being watched or monitored those
attacks could have been stopped or at least less death could
have occurred. From a political and constitutional stand point,
consequences of counter-terrorism can vary. I political stand is
to protect and preserve the freedom for the people. Protecting
one’s Constitutional rights depends on what the politician’s
plans on policies and procedures that could begin to take away
those civil rights that were granted and give people the sense of
freedom that the nation is built on. Policies and procedures can
change everything take the mask wearing and social distancing
for Covid-19, you have the people that are okay with it all and
are following the rules but then you have the ones that have
been protesting or fighting people over the fact that they don’t
want to wear a mask. To me personally it’s simple to wear a
mask but to others it’s a reason of rights being taken away by
mandating it. Working for the military and DHS I personally
don’t see freedom and security as a tradeoff. If agencies do
their jobs correctly and protect the United States and National
Security then freedom wouldn’t be at stake. I believe in freedom
but the security measures in place are to help protect that
freedom, without the security measures the nation would be
under attack like 9/11 or worse.
2. The internal terrorist threat in the United States is
operational and complicated, with continuing threats from
extreme left- and right-wing extremist groups and radicalization
and recruitment efforts by international terrorist groups. Since
Sept/11, our nation's entire security measures and agencies have
been revamped and stricter in all levels of government. The
intelligence community is significantly restricted in its ability
to monitor or participate in domestic political groups secretly.
The FBI is this nation's domestic intelligence agency
accountable for managing domestic terrorism, but the FBI does
not report to the ODNI. I think the ODNI and the FBI should

3. cooperate, and it may help fill in the gap where one
organization cannot. The all around structure of government, by
circumscribing coercive activities that might occur within the
United States, protects the liberty of citizens in the United
States, including foreign persons who are not lawful permanent
residents. Take this for example, the military is hemmed in by
strict legal rules that significantly reduce its authority to
operate domestically and help preserve liberty at home. Many of
the political drawbacks of counterterrorism efforts are
inadvertent or unimportant. However, some pessimistic
spectators might question that governments, predominantly
officials of the executive branch, influence the danger of
terrorism to magnify their dominances. Many provisions of the
Patriot Act were set to conclude at the end of 2005 and, despite
opposition from across the political spread and more than 400
state and community resolutions expressing concern about the
Patriot Act, Congress reauthorized the law without reforming its
most flawed provisions to bring these extraordinary powers
back in line with the Constitution. The civil rights and civil
liberties of all American citizens, including Arab Americans,
African Americans ,Muslim Americans, and Americans from
South Asia, must be protected. Every effort must be taken to
preserve their safety. This announcement possibly bestows a
worry between national security and the individual liberty of
American citizens. It could be contended that the apparent
mention to Americans of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian
descent exemplifies that their security and civil liberties are
under threat, not only from terrorists but possibly from fellow
citizens and even the government elected to defend them.