|
Civil Liberties According to the ConstitutionWartime public policy in the United States has a history of restricting and sometimes violating certain civil liberties. During all of the major wars in America -- the Civil War, World War I, and World War II – the government restricted Americans’ civil liberties in the sake of suppressing dissent, silencing criticism of political decisions and preserving national security. Government’s respond to terrorist attacks by proposing and enacting antiterrorism legislation, in which policymakers claim that terrorism can be prevented by restraining the civil liberties of the people. This dubious claim is very often accepted by the public because they are in such a need to be safe and secure, when in reality the policy and continued use of ones like it will eventually cause America to loose it’s freedom. There have been, however several policies brought into affect which do not even --- Through the attempts and failures of past policies the government has run across a problem, that of balancing national security and the civil liberties of American citizens. One solution that clearly failed to balance national security and the civil liberties of the people is when President Lincoln interfered with freedom of speech and of the press and ordered that suspected political criminals be tried before military tribunals. Lincoln's most controversial act was probably suspending the writ of habeas corpus, a safeguard of liberty that dates back to English common law and England's Habeas Corpus Act of 1671. Habeas corpus says that authorities must bring a person they arrest before a judge who orders it. The US Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." But Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without waiting for Congress to authorize it. Lincoln's decision led to a showdown between the military and United States Chief Justice Roger Taney. After the U.S. Army arrested John Merryman on charges of destroying railroad bridges and imprisoned him in Fort McHenry, Merryman's lawyer drew up a habeas corpus petition that Taney quickly signed. When the Army refused to bring Merryman before the high court, Taney said the U.S. marshals had the authority to haul Army General George Cadwalader into the courtroom on contempt charges -- but Taney would not order it since the marshals would likely be outgunned. Instead, Taney protested and called on Lincoln "to perform his constitutional duty to enforce the laws" and the "process of this court." Another solution which failed to bring balance between national security and civil liberty is the internment of Japanese immigrants and their children in walled camps in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. In Executive Order 9066, President Roosevelt authorized the military to remove Japanese-Americans from America's west coast, home to many military bases and manufacturing plants -- and viewed at the time as vulnerable to Japanese attack. In a remarkable silence, the American Civil Liberties Union did not object to the internment camps until years later. Challenges to the internment camps found their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a brief supporting the camps, the states of Washington, Oregon and California noted that Japanese submarines had attacked oil platforms at Santa Barbara, California, the town of Brookings, Oregon, and a gun installation at Astoria, Oregon. On June 7, 1942, the brief said, the Japanese had invaded North America by occupying some Aleutian islands. In its response, drafted by Chief Justice Harlan Stone in 1943, the court ducked the constitutionality of internment camps, ruling only on a related curfew requirement. The justices upheld the action: "Whatever views we may entertain regarding the loyalty to this country of the citizens of Japanese ancestry, we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population." The civil liberty policy, The Department of Homeland Security, in the current war on terrorism is constitutional. Before the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the United states spent between $30 and $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering and analysis, overseas and at home. In response to the attacks and demands of the public Congress has begun investigations into past performance and future role of the American government’s intelligence community. The Department has set certain strategic objectives, which in order of priority are to: prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur. It will not collect intelligence but will perform the essential tasks of analyzing and sharing intelligence with other agencies and state and local governments. The new Department of Homeland Security calls for a great organizational transformation at the federal level. The establishment of this department ensures greater accountability over critical homeland security missions and unity of purpose among the agencies responsible for them. The challenge is to develop interconnected and complementary systems that are reinforcing rather than duplicative and that ensure essential requirements are met. Proof that this policy is attempting to balance national security and civil liberties of the American citizens is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has given a critical role to state and local governments. This is because state and local governments are the first to deal with threats and incidents. Hopefully this will reduce the incidences where civil liberties are violated. Six of the twelve major initiatives developed in the National Strategy for Homeland Security deal with things on the state level. They are: coordinate suggested minimum standards for driver’s licenses, enhance market capacity for terrorism insurance, train for prevention of cyber attacks, suppress money laundering, ensure continuity of the judiciary and review quarantine authorities. |