Carmen Chan/ How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders

The government should have a right to monitor the actions of the people within its borders, especially during stressful times such as war; as long as its monitoring does not result in the violation of human rights. The state possesses the highest power and therefore has jurisdiction in virtually all areas that society has to deal with. Hence, it does have the right to monitor the actions of people. In times of war, famine, disease and violent acts will arise. In such times, the general public is unable to control and detain the situation, thus requiring the intervention of a higher power. For example, the state should have the right to implement a curfew during a war. This helps keep the people safe and reduces the chance of a violent protest or riot that may result in more deaths. During the recent clash between the red shirts and the yellow shirts in Thailand, the state intervened and imposed a curfew to monitor the actions of the Thais. This action has prevented more deaths and kept the people safe. Thus, the state should intervene in times of war to help control the situation. However, the state should not intervene when it violates human rights. The purpose of the state monitoring is to benefit the people; however when the state crosses the line and invades the privacy of people, this right should be revoked. For example, the CIA in America has the authority to monitor anyone without the person legally consenting to it. This has resulted in the unhappiness of Americans and resulting in Americans losing faith in their legal system. Hence, I believe that the state should have a right to monitor the actions of people when in dire situations such as war but not at the expense of the privacy of people.