The war on terror has sparked a vigorous debate over how many of our civil liberties, if any, should be sacrificed to keep the public safe from terrorist attack. The conflict between civil liberties and national security has come up before in American history — most notably in the Alien and Sedition Acts at the end of the eighteenth century, President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Join moderator Richard Menaker (Menaker & Herrmann LLP) as he discusses this issue with panelists Alan Brinkley (Columbia University), Joanne Freeman (Yale University), Thomas Kean (Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and former Governor of New Jersey), and Mark Neely (Pennsylvania State University).
Directions: Post at least 2 responses to the podcast considering the following questions. How was the conflict between civil liberties and national security resolved in past events? What perspective do those events add to the current debate over the war on terror?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
There are three major historical instances of the government suppressing individual liberties under the claim of increased national security, discounting those recent events in the war on terror. These three were the Alien and Sedition acts, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, and internment of Japanese Americans in world war two. All of these share the fact that they fall within the “obsessive quest for peace during a time of war.” While all admittedly violated the rights of American citizens, there is an argument for these actions, for the most part a strong one. In the case of Interment, Roosevelt issued the order that Japanese Americans be relocated away from the west coast after the United States entered war with Japan on the grounds that it would prevent Japanese spies from operating there. Beyond the simple violation of these people’s rights to the property they consequently lost, a major issue arose that interment was motivated by race. This argument has merit as a similar program was not instituted with regards to Americans of German or Italian descent. The government later apologized to the Japanese Americans and has issued reparations. A similar argument could be used to support Lincoln’s actions. Here it was in the midst of the Civil War that he suspended the rights of habeas corpus, which normally allowed courts to evaluate whether a prisoner was held justly in custody. However, the constitution offers a clause that habeas corpus may be suspended “when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” Therefore, Lincoln was within his given powers. The first such instance of civil liberties being violated bears the weakest argument. It is perhaps due to the fact that unlike the later two, the alien and sedition acts were not instituted in a time of war, but rather when the country was only on the verge of war. Further, the powers afforded under the act were less obvious in their measures to ensure national security. Also unlike the later two, the Sedition act in particular held some political motivation by the federalists to silence their republican opposition. Thus while not necessarily right, Lincoln and Roosevelt could be said to have simply been looking toward improved national security, while Adams and the federalists clearly stepped beyond national interest into political gain with their suppression of rights.
The past instances of civil liberties being suspended in the name of national security could be seen as a precedent of doing so in time of war and national crisis. However, only the suspension of habeas corpus, which is specifically detailed in the constitution, has met minor opposition. The Alien and Sedition Acts are now vaunted as a gross violation of basic rights and a black mark on the presidency of John Adams. The internment of Japanese Americans led to a formal apology and reparations. Thus based on the results of such suspensions, it would not be recommended that they occur again. However, it is my personal opinion that the sacrifice of some minor rights in the name of increased security is well founded. In the instance of the War on Terror, where nearly all those who seek to do us harm are among us, it is pertinent that we should give up to some extent our rights to privacy or perhaps loosen the grounds needed for search and seizure, in the hopes that it will allows such people as those who planned the September eleventh attacks to be caught before harm can be done. On the flip side it is implied that our trust in the government not to abuse these powers is also well founded. I believe it is this trust in the government to seek that which is to our benefit where the problem lies. Fewer Americans trust in the government to do so and it has become less definite to me that this distrust is unfounded. Still, we cannot allow our own rights to shield our enemies from discovery.
As we travel through America’s history, it continually becomes more evident that there is a delicate balance between civil liberties and national security with the scales tilting towards national security. Thomas Kean’s (Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and former Governor of New Jersey) commentary on the War on Terror brought up some interesting concerns when looking at times when in war restrictions exist on civil liberties and in peace time the scales tend to tilt in favor of civil liberties. His comments though regarding that the war on terror having no specific enemy, no time frame, no peace treaties in of itself make this war different; thereby, suggesting the probability of a rebalancing of civil liberties not as apt to occur. Considering this and other insights noting that Congress has not made the Congressional reforms suggested by the commission reminds me of Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 discussing how and if this new government will check itself. Again, civil liberty violations often occur as people are not attentive or questioning, the actions of government.
The conflict between civil liberties and national security resolved in past events by suppressing written and spoken criticism of the government. France and England were always at war so that lead to insecurities in America which lead to America signing an alliance with Great Britain. This caused France to become unhappy and France and America almost came to war with each other. The national government passed the alien and sedition act. One of the parts of it was that the president could deport any of the aliens who he believes is dangers to the safety of America. Federalists thought that the French tried to sway the vote of the presidency vote.
I believe that the alien acts really effected how we view the war on terror now. I believe this because on of the rules stated that the president could deport any one who he believes is dangerous or could harm the safety of the nation. This could have saved problems if it was still in effect today like terrorists attacks could be eliminated, but it could also lead to people thinking that America would become prejudice to different people. That could lead to more problems such as war so it could be a good thing and a bad thing.
There has been many conflicts between civil liberties and national security that were resolved in past events. One of these events included the Alien and Sedition Acts. This was issued when the United States was on the verge of war with the French. This act was to expire in 1801. These acts were to control public opinion and it was to protect themselves against the republicans and to crush them. These acts were also to deport or to restrain someone that may support the republicans. This act especially wasn't more towards national security but more towards the punishment to those who opposed the government. The next event that was a conflict was Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. When this was issued by him the country was already in the middle of the civil war. Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus since the country was in the middle of a war. Habeas corpus was that whether a prisoner could be held in custody. Another event was the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was to prevent Japanese spies to be working in California and the west coast. Many of these people lost their property and this event was in some ways motivated by race. Even Germans and Italians in this time period were only moderately prejudiced against. This was because the Italians and Germans were assimilated in the American culture while the Japanese stood out. In some ways these events could have been helping towards national security, but in some ways they were against our civil liberties. Especially the right to freedom of the press, where anyone can write about how they oppose the government and not be persecuted.
These events add to the current debate over the war on terror. I agree with Stephen that with the war on terror some of our rights can be loosened. Especially the right of search and seizure I think that the government can do that if they have a reason that we might be a terrorist. I think this because it would do the greatest good for the greater amount of people and it would protect our national security. Mainly because what if a terrorist had explosives and the government didnt have the right to search him and his belongings, and then the man kills a lot of people. That would make me mad if that happened because it could have been prevented. I think that the government should have the right to prevent something like 9/11 from ever happening again. However I still believe that some rights should not be threatend like the freedom of speech and of the press, and assembly. To me these rights are important and if the government took away these rights it would make a lot of people angry. The Alien and Sedition acts to me did not really help in the event of a war but really tried to put down oppostion. I also believe that no one should be persecuted because of their race or religion as the Japanese were during WWII.
I agree with Stephen and Michelle in the fact that some of our rights can be tweaked in order for us to remain safe. Isn’t it similar to what goes on in an airport? If taken literally, we could argue that no one has the right to search through our things. However, if they did not do this, the majority of people could end up in great danger. On the other hand, this doesn’t give government the right to tweak every right. They have to know where to draw the line, and in my opinion that line should be where it does and does not affect a person’s safety.
I think that these events add to the debate over the war on terror today. I think that having the ability to search people at the airport and other various locations and having the ability to seize items that are thought of as to be a threat are good policies. I think that it is a good policy, while others debate it is an envasion of private property and belongings, is good because these policies help lower the threat of terrorist attacks on us. I agree with Michelle in that I also believe that the government shouldn't threaten our rights of freedom of speech and press because I also think they are very important. I also agree with Michelle in that people shouldn't be prosecuted because of race or religion.
I do not believe that the conflict between civil liberties and national security were ever or can possibly be solved. The line is too fine. The Alien and Sedition Acts were on one side, meant to protect the US from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop rebels from weakening the government. On the other side, these acts were seen to be unconstitutional and endangering the people's rights. No matter what the government does, there's bound to be both positive and negative outcomes.
Past events have influenced our attitude towards civil liberties and national security because the actions taken and the outcomes that occurred were generally the same. An example of this is that in both the Civil War and our present War on Terror, the writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended. This was seen as good to many people because it increased the safety of the US but also bad because it curtailed a hearing to one who is being held for an indefinite amount of time.
In the past often times the government has disregarded civil liberites, and the concerns that the citizen had by quieting the public opinion. For example when the alien and sedition acts were passed. Many people who supported the other side were silenced or imprisoned. I think in the past the government has always ultimatly felt that the national security was of a higher priority than that of civil liberites.
I also think that the past events regarding national security and civil liberties has left a precedent that national security is more important. I think that the governments current fears about war have led them to forget about the peoples liberites. This may be a stretch but at some point if the peoples liberites continue to be violated isn't their a potential for rebellion and a sort of terror in our own country, as the people want their rights back? and at that point won't the government be fighting two wars then? and isn't their a way that the government is able to protect the nation and the rights and liberites of it's people. By the government continually violating the peoples rights isn't that kind of what this nation was formed because it didn't want to be like. It didn't want to be ruled and controlled by a select elite.
In the past, there have been conflicts between civil liberties and national security. The Alien and Sedition Acts is an example of such a past conflict. The Alien and Sedition Acts were meant to quiet opposition from the Republican part when America was on the verge of war with France. These acts also gave the President the power to deport or control those who supported Republicanism ideals. I agree with Michelle, these Acts were more about punishment than national security, especially because the country was not in the middle of a war, only on the verge of one. Another time when the conflict arose between civil liberties and national security was in the middle of the Civil War. Lincoln had suspended the right to corpus habeas. Corpus habeas was the right of the court to determine if a prisoner was being held for a just reason or not. Lincoln was not overstepping the limits of his powers because the country was in the middle of a war. World War II brought about another conflict between civil liberties and national security in America. During World War II the American government was afraid that the Japanese residents in America that lived in California and along the Western coast would become spies. To counter this fear the government created internment camps where many Japanese were sent. Their properties were taken away from them; however, eventually the government did apologize to the Japanese people.
I agree with Stephen and Michelle, I believe some of our right a citizen could be loosened in order to prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. After 9/11 many security measure were taken to increase security over all in our country. However, this may not have been enough to completely prevent another attack. I would willingly give up some of my rights to my privacy if it meant that a terrorist could be stopped before harming anyone. What happened in September of 2001 was a horrible day in American history. It is something that should never be allowed to happen on American soil ever again.
The conflict between civil liberties and national security was resolved in many different past events. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which were issued in a time when the United States was on the brink of war, were seen as an attempt to increase national security. France and Great Britain were the greatest powers in the world at this time and they were constantly at war. This made it hard for the United States because when they allied with one of these nations the other would be angry. America eventually signed a treaty with Great Britain which almost resulted in a war between America and France. This treaty, known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, gave the U.S. government the authority to deport any aliens that they saw as a threat. Another even that tried to resolve these issues was Habeas Corpus, which was suspended by Lincoln in the middle of a civil war. It allowed prisoners to see if they were being fairly held in custody. Also, the prejudice and unfair treatment that the Japanese people faced, due to the event that occurred at Pearl Harbor during World War II. The U.S. government was able to relocate the Japanese if they viewed them as a threat.
I think these events greatly add to the current debate over the war on terror. If the Aliens and Sedition Acts were still in effect today, the government could force anyone who looked threatening to evacuate the country. This would lead to prejudice and greater conflict between different peoples and with governments. I think this would have both positive and negative results. Violence and terrorists attacks would most likely be prevented but I think that even more wars would result. Overall, I don’t think this would have a positive impact on the United States because more people would grow angry with the government and more conflicts would result. I also think the rights Americans have in the Bill of Rights are important to all people in this country.
I agree with Foster, that could France and England were always at war and the fact that they were at war gave America insecurities, which then led America to sign a treaty with Great Britain. this caused France to get unhappy and have war with America. Government enacted the alien and sedition acts to keep the French out of America.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were made to keep and push out hated cultures. The Japanese- Americans were placed in internment camps because they were thought to have connections with Japan. they were also placed in the camps because American citizens thought that the Japanese-Americans had an idea of when Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor. the placing of people in internment camps basically took away citizen rights.
In the past during the time period America was on the brink of war. With threats of Britain and france going to "swallow" America. Thus the alien and sedation act was born. This was supposed to prevent illegal immigration and to protect america from falling. There were 4 acts in this act. These were to make the act stronger. They considered the effects to it. French had tried to get america to drop the acts. I believe this acts were never resolved since they are still debating it today. In my mind I don't see how debating shows a resolution. I believe that they probably won't resolve before it is to late. I don't think they are approaching the topic correctly. The debates are based off the alien and sedation act and current laws. So do I believe there was resolution? No. Do I believe that there is possibility of a resolution? Yes.
To what extent has habeus corpus been suspended during the war on terror? How or where is it found that the government has this authority and for whom?
Post a Comment