Civil Liberties

Government at times has decreased civil liberties of Americans for the safety of national security. This means both foreign and domestic issues of security. A question sometimes is, is it right for the government to do so and when have they done it in American history? Most people believe that the government has no right to do so. Yet in times of war people let the government do so, just to feel safer. How much safer are you when government officials can search through Emails, put you under surveillance without a search warrant or even probable cause. Ben Franklin once said, "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

As it looks we live in a mocking society. People want the government to stay out of their personal business, even though they give up there liberty for safety. Although some do believe it a violation of of personal rights, some believe it is alright the government does so. Why is they want to feel safe and in that do not mind loosing some liberties for that safety. In my opinion these people want sheltered and cared for. Instead of seeing life how it is and fight for the rights they deserve. They should not just letting people/Government role them over for the unrealistic thought of being totally safe. Mazelo's law states, "anything that can go wrong will go wrong." In relation to this specific topic, the government cannot provide complete and total safety. The thought of complete and total safety is nothing but a hoax. People/government play on the thought to persuade a false sense of security, like the same as stoking up fear of terrorism. To persuade the masses to act on what a politician has put in a bill for example. If you control peoples fear you control the people.

In transition a time period when government "suspended" civil liberties was during the Civil War, under Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln independently suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861. Aiming to keep the union together and to prevent a rebellious group from separating (Bagga). The Writ was used to challenge the authority for imprisonment sentences and other forms of detention (Bagga). the reason for this was due to a constant threats of riots, small militia, and fear of succession from the union. In response, Lincoln independently suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, so as to create social peace and protect military operations by arresting and/or detaining groups who rebelled against the northern military (Bagga). The result was the imprisonment of 13,535 citizens during the period of February 1862 to April 1865 as reported by the Commissionaire General of prisoners (Smith). Legally only congress had the right to suspended the Writ . He let his Generals suspend several newspapers, but only for a short periods, and he promptly revoked a military order suppressing the hostile Chicago Times (A+E Television Networks LLC).

A main point is legally Congress had the right to suspend the Writ. what was done by Lincoln was unethical in relevance to social standards. At this point, the Union loyalists were supporters for his war policies and demanded public safety from attacks, invasions, and rebellions (Bagga). It was believed that 'traitors' would use the cover of freedom of expression, liberty of press, as well as the Writ of Habeas Corpus in order to successfully execute harmful plans against the Union (Bagga). Government agencies controlled freedom of press so as to confiscate any controversial issues in the newspapers and other publications, and military officials were given authority to abide by or suspend the Writ when needed (Smith). the Union loyalists supported Lincoln due to the fact that they were not the ones directly affected by the removal of these rights, but confederate supporters. Also the prisoners (prisoners refers to civilians to, not only or limited to confederate military personnel) were against the injustices they faced without cause. A court case that tested the legality of the issue was Merryman Case. Chief Justice Taney in the case, ex parte Merryman decided that Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional as it pertains to legislative powers, and not to executive powers (Touro Law Department Home Page). Taney further decided that it was unconstitutional for the president to delegate to military officers individual discretion to obey the judicial process as he himself had broken the very laws he'd sworn to 'faithfully execute' (Touro Law Department Home Page). supported by a quote from the New York Tribune, "The Chief Justice takes sides with traitors, throwing around them the sheltering protection of the ermine," (Brennan). Taney stayed with his belief of suspending the Writ was unconstitutional.

Lincoln, only after his death and after the war in 1866 that the Supreme Court ruled in the case of ex parte Milligan that it was unconstitutional to hold citizens not associated with the military (Bagga). In relevance the ideal of government should not be of people, but of laws. It is evident that the Civil War is an example where the government, in order to satisfy a political ideology, neglected the balance of powers in times of crisis (Bagga). In accordance, many government officials approved detention of innocent civilians. Something else noticeable was the actions of the president bluntly was his law interpretation. Although it was not explicitly written in the Constitution at the time, it was Lincoln's duty to consult Congress before suspending such a significant part of the constitution explicitly placed under legislative powers (Bagga). The suspending of the Writ of Habeas Corpus was not the right of the president.

Lincoln was a wholesaler in my opinion, for he looked for the greatest good of the union states. Although utilitarian approach is a popular ethical standpoint to take when acting in the interest of a democratic nation state during a crisis, it is important to consider a social justice from a deontological standpoint because this country's governing laws are set to limit the authority of the government by ensuring individual rights that are inherent in the Bill of Rights (American Civil Liberties Union: About Us). This represents an extremely valued set of social standards guaranteed by the US Constitution and the duty of the government officials to uphold those standards, most definitely in times of crisis. The deontological theory, a leader should stress the role of duty and respect for persons, even though it may not give high importance to the idea of social utility (Bagga).

Another time in history when the constitutional rights of citizens in America where taken was during WWII. Due to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. This created a fear that caused Americans to be suspicious and fearful of Japanese-Americans.