"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

There are many cases in which governments may decide to temporarily ingnor some civil laws. However, this cannot be justified at all, because all corrupt politicians and governments do similar act against their nation. In urgent cases, we can choose a more reliable, expedient strategy to solve the problem, other than breaking law.

Although, sometimes it seems that circumventing laws is the easiest way of facing some problems, it is by no means the best way. For example, at the juncture of wars, many politicians decide to do surreptitious actions to cover what it is going on from enemies. They even may put pressure on opponents and limit the freedom of speech. They usually argue that this is just a temporary policy and situation demands such a reaction. But this cannot be justified with any rule or principle, because such a policy, i.e. going against laws, will just yield to harm to society, instead of protecting it from dangers. Ignoring laws can become a habit for officials and this will corrupt a government in long term. Therefore, there would be no point to assume such a corrupt policy as justified.

Conversely, the effective answer to any problem is honesty. Governments should obey laws in any situation, unless people or their representatives in parliament allow them to do something that may break the law. But this should be done only by a legitimate procedure. No one is allowed to break law without making sure that it is under the supervision of another authority. My impression is that when you consider a problem in a democratic plan, it is more likely to find a better resolution for that problem than when you try to face it without consulting. More importantly, when a government obeys laws it is immune from the criticism of its bad consequences. I should be hesitant about this claim, because a wise person should always do concern about something’s outcomes. However, in most cases, conformity to laws will not result in bad consequences, but the contrary is more probable to bring about such outcomes. I want, however, to warn against some really urgent situations in which there is no time for hesitation. Nevertheless, the very exigent demands can justify any action, though I believe such cases are minor and very clear to discern.

To conclude, I should say again that there is nothing above truth. No government is allowed to go against laws to do something that seems to be worthy. In the case of security, there are many democratic and legitimate ways of resolving problems and therefore, there would be no place for ignoring civil laws for civil welfare.