There is an ongoing debate regarding whether or not government should have the right to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens in times of war. In David N. Gibb’s article, “The CIA is Back on Campus”, he argues “against collaboration between universities and intelligence agencies”. Gibb appears to be saying that the CIA’s involvement is an unfair use of professional knowledge. In essence, the intent and purpose of the government’s interest in this sort of cooperation with academia is solely for their benefit. With that in mind, it seems as though a form of exploitation is taking place. For example, CIA agents had asked professionals in fields of psychology and other sciences to offer their expertise in experiments involving a “variety of drugs” and assessing “test subjects”. While some scholars may argue such an occurrence is auspicious, I disagree in part. In times of war, it is not always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
Advocates of government infringement on civil liberties during times of war might argue that giving officials the power to intervene is the quickest and easiest solution to fighting conflict. Imagine if the United States left it up to independent communities to establish problem-solving strategies in response to warfare. Without a doubt, several factors come to mind that discredit this hypothetical approach. For example uncertainty would arise regarding delegation, efficiency, and access to adequate resources or contacts. Our nation would only agree to these deficient community remedies acquiescently because there seems to be a level of comfort associated with a more cogent agenda associated with a higher power. What these advocates fail to recognize, however, is that civil liberties were essentially created in order to protect citizens from state intrusion. For this reason, we must consider the other side of the argument as well.
By intervening with the freedom of our nation’s people, government is ultimately condoning abuse of official power. According to the United States Constitution, we are guaranteed specific inalienable rights. Why then should the government challenge our freedoms in a way that compromises what has been promised to us in times of war? One might respond countering this question by asking why shouldn’t the government be able to challenge our freedoms in a way that compromises are freedoms especially in times of war? Perhaps arguing one side of this debate is not the solution. It could be that the United States must find a common ground when it comes to exercising power in times of need and maintaining privileges, immunities, and political rights.
In conclusion, developing a medium that caters to both a need for imposition and fundamental rights is the answer. In times of war, the higher powers may need to infringe on such things as privacy in order to benefit the nation as a whole. It is important to recognize the bigger picture; the idea that the government exists to keep us safe, and make sure order is either maintained or restored. Although it is acceptable on occasion to confront its initiatives, we must also keep in mind the outcome of whatever the agenda may be in perspective of the greater good. At the same time, our independent preservation is also an important factor to always consider.
In times of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens for multiple reasons. One of the many duties of the government is to protect and serve the citizens that reside within the boundaries of the country. In order to ensure the safety of the people in the country, occasionally the government will be obligated to violate the liberties of its own people. If the government does not breach rights during times of war, the devastation of a preventable act of war could be catastrophic. I will argue that in certain conditions like war, the government should be permitted to flout upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
Throughout the history of the United States, there are examples of occasions when the government intervened during a period of war for the sake of its people. In recent years, the Patriot Act was implemented under the administration of President Bush in 2001 after the attack on the world trade towers. This act has been argued to invade the freedoms and privacy of the United State citizens. The privacy act entitles the government to search telephone, email, medical and other records of any person in the United States. The motivation behind the Privacy Act was to protect the citizens of the United States from terrorist. President Bush had called for a war on terror and these circumstances created a need for the government to protect us by investigating our records to apprehend terrorists.
In the past, the United States has also used similar tactics to defend the citizens. In the course of World War II, the Japanese and Japanese-Americans were forced to relocate after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1942 to confinement camps along the west coast. This act has been castigated to be unconstitutional because the government seized the freedom of the Japanese descendents and put them in bellicose camps to segregate them from the community. President Roosevelt authorized the internment camps because of the collusion that there were Japanese spies living in the United States. Roosevelt acted on his decision to detain the Japanese in America because many perceived this would prevent the United States from further attacks.
In conclusion, desperate times call for desperate measures. In times of war, the government should be allowed to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. If the United States had never implemented the programs that violated civil liberties, there could have been more tragedy and more lives lost in these circumstances. The government is often imposing these regulations for the greater good of the people even though they may be an inconvenience to a certain demographic of the population.
You do a great job of tying together your examples with your thesis. However, I partly agree with your perspective. I question if a government is tied down to a specific regulation, aren't they, in a way, defeating themselves? We call parts of the Constitution Amendments; doctrines of change. Perhaps this reveals our nations imperfections but, at the same time, shows our strengths because we remain flexible. I believe for complete effectiveness a balance between common sense and regulation is needed.
Throughout history times of war have created much adversity. There remains an everlasting dispute that evokes the question whether or not it is permissible for the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Some may argue that by infringing on our civil liberties, the government loses a sense of its defined independency suggested in the Constitution. However, if a government is completely tied down to specific regulations or laws, despite the circumstances, it becomes more vulnerable; the government may end up defeating themselves. In this essay, I will argue that there must be an axiom of balance between common sense and regulation, within any government, that protects the civil liberties of its citizens. The United States government attempted to unite common sense with regulation when the Patriot Act was passed in 2001. In an attempt to protect against further terrorist attacks, The Patriot Act was passed to allow less-restrictive investigative measures in areas of communication, finance, medical and personal records, etc. Some castigate the Patriot Act for abusing the authority of United States government by completely disregarding individual privacy. However, at the same time, the Act is an example of the flexibility needed to protect an unaware nation in times of crisis. After the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, it was clearly evident that new regulations needed to be implemented into our government to increase its effectiveness. If our nation failed to do something, we would remain vulnerable in the same ways that got us hurt before. Transforming a once ambiguous policy into a structured law, The Patriot Act represents the amalgamation of common sense with regulation because, as a nation, we quickly realized the need for change. The ability to quickly respond and realize a need for change has become a major strength of the United States government. Without understanding the importance of flexibility, one could argue that a government should only handle regulative matters and perhaps this reveals our nations imperfections. On the other hand, it shows strength because we remain flexible; regulations should be relative towards any situation in order to become responsive and protect the greater good of the nation. Often times, real case scenarios may call for different measures. For example, in the CIA attempts to blend their investigative knowledge with the world of academia in order to better protect the nation. The Agency uses trained professionals in many science related fields to experiment and join professional knowledge with regulation. We must realize the significance of knowledge and common sense when new laws are made. A policy may become antiquated because of an increasing amount of knowledge. If this is degraded, we would essentially be leaving our nation open to a shot below the belt. The CIA attempts to prevent this by reinforcing their investigative policies with a common knowledge that protects the citizens. Finally, it is evident that the government has an extreme regulative power but, without incorporating common sense or professional knowledge, the government is nearly useless and becomes more vulnerable. With a constantly changing society in mind, the government should remain adaptive to real circumstances, rather than being tied down to a preexisting policy. The question is no longer whether or not it is permissible for the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens, but rather, how it will continue to blend policy with logic to better protect the greater good of the nation.
David Gibbs’ “The CIA is Back on Campus” raises valid points about government control in academia. Speaking specifically of the CIA, Gibbs decries the stranglehold held by “the Agency” to release information of its furtive actions. However, even given the covert and, considering those who think like Mr. Gibbs, disingenuous nature of the CIA, is it permissible to stymie the pursuit of information and an American citizen’s right to spread it? Freedom of the press and the rights of free speech, including the free flow of information and knowledge, are some of the most important rights and civil liberties in America.
Taking a step further, history has shown that in times of war the amalgamation of fear and anger in the populous and unbridled government power can lead to less than desirable outcomes. Most notably, the September attacks of 2001 morphed a proud country into one fearful of a previously “unknown” enemy, angered by their actions and willing to give up anything if it meant government protection. The ignorance of a nation gave the Bush Administration the power to all but flagrantly spy on its own citizens, infringing on their rights. The same happened under President Roosevelt and his creation of Japanese internment camps, under Adolf Hitler who removed any and all noticeable contributions to society made by those of Jewish decent, just as Joseph Stalin did in Russia. Just looking at these four figures, governmental actions that infringed upon the civil liberties of its people – suppressing information, promoting misconceptions of a people and the like – occurred during times of war and can be said to have done irreparable damage, shaping the world, though not for the better.
Having looked at the repercussions of governments infringing on civil liberties, should it ever be permissible? America is country built on the idea of a government whose sole job is to serve and protect its people – who are the ones that give the government its power. At the same time, the Amendments to the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, are what provide the civil liberties to citizens. The documents that govern this country and what is permissible government behavior are already set in place. Any increase in power for the government to do as it pleases is only permissible if and only if the people say so. Unfortunately this power often is given in times of war, when the wrong motives, such as fear and pride, command the course of action, and when sensible, thought out, calculated action is not likely to have been made and when encroachments on civil liberties are even more serious.
In sum, it is questionable if government should ever have the ability to infringe upon the civil liberties of its people, let alone in times of war. If there is one thing that can be learned by the wars America is currently fighting, and the aforementioned examples, action guided by fear and hubris can lead to regrettable situations, triggering wars that often infringe on its people.
@Patricia I like that you asked questions of what the cost of either action would be. This shifts the debate from who's wrong and who's right, over to what is the best course of action, and what elements of either side are valid for leading to much more desirable results. However, giving the government the ability to do as it wished in times of war is often the worst case scenario. For instance, under the implementation of the Patriot Act even the most private of things about your life, the government is now privy to. And if we begin to sacrifice some rights and liberties, where is it that a line can be drawn? Does the willingness of some mean that we all have to relent? Do possible benefits outweigh definite costs? And what makes some civil liberties less important than others?
Throughout our society, the argument of the modernity of civil liberties pervades. What has oft been considered a polarized debate has become one of multiple facets. Within American society, three stances are held: the left argues that civil liberties may be infringed upon if it benefits the greater social good, the right argues that a different set of liberties may be thrown to the side only if it protects the safety of the country, and a third sub-set of the population raise their collective arms in protest of any violation of civil liberties. Even though the former two arguments propose their opinions to take into consideration the “greater good” of society, their path is dangerous and is detrimental to the ideals conceived by our Founding Fathers. If we continue to relinquish the civil liberties which our ancestors fought so diligently to obtain, we will surely live to regret our actions and will leave a lesser future for our descendents. In his article entitled, “The CIA is Back on Campus,” David Gibbs notes the integration of academia and certain agencies within the government—namely the CIA. He, furthermore, opines that the CIA crosses a proverbial line of ethics by doing so. Although this occurrence is, indeed, a cause of alarm for society, the events throughout the past decade have shown that the government, as a whole, is in the business of stripping away the collective civil liberties of its citizens. Signed into law on October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act serves as the basis for “dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies’ ability to search telephone, email communications, medical, financial, and other records.” The law also expanded “the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism.” By broadening law enforcement powers and powers of the executive branch, our government successfully enacted away many of our collective privacy rights. Although a certain sub-set of our population argue that the law was necessary to ensure our safety, the well documented use of fear in order to reduce civil liberties normally held by citizens and the dismissal of its importance by the American public will, indeed, lead to future regrets. A further concern is the increasing and, some would say, overreaching power of the executive branch throughout the past decade. The “emergency bailout” of the auto-industry, for example, enacted via executive order by former president George W. Bush has no basis within the constitution. His actions throughout his presidency represent a gross overreach of executive powers not seen since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, with Executive Order 9066, effectively interned 120,000 Japanese-Americans, Germans, and Italians. In total, President Roosevelt’s misinterpretation of the use of Executive Orders numbered in 3,435 orders (more than one order every two days). The Founders meant the Legislative Branch to be the most powerful of the three within our Federal Government due to their proximity to the American people. Allowing the balance of power to shift to the Executive Branch, we only allow our civil liberties to be blind-sided in times of hardship and fear. In closing, the solution to combating the overreaching arm of the Federal Government lies on we, as citizens, and our ability to hold accountable those who we elect. Through support of bills such as HR 1207 (The Federal Reserve Transparency Act) and HR 3765 (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2009 or REINS), we can modify the collective view that the government is “untouchable” and reform the government to one of which the Founders intended: one accountable to its citizens. By doing so, we can promise opportunities and freedom for future generations. Word Count: 603
You raise valid points regarding the timing of "power-grabs" by our government. Should drastic changes be made in times of deress )particularly when those laws involve our civil liberties)? I, for one, find it interesting that the collective opinion switches from one pole to the other, depending on which party is in office (for the most part).
@ Patricia You did a good job using the prompt to shape your paper. I think that your essay flowed and was precise. However, I think that you could work on using specific examples in order to strengthen you argument.
War is a common feature of human existence. During times of war, it is not uncommon for governments to violate civil rights in order to attain victory. Some argue however that such violations are not always permissible. Such flawed rationale would lead to chaos during wartime however. Instead one can argue that governmental violations of civil liberties are always permissible during times of war because of the need to isolate enemies and establish unity.
Wartime is a period of chaos by nature as a nation faces enemies inside and outside its borders. Accordingly, the period requires strong governmental actions in identifying and isolating enemies. One might then argue that this creates a slippery slope in which the government has the ability to turn into a dictatorship, as David Gibbs castigates in part in his article “The CIA is Back on Campus.“ However, during war a country must do anything and everything to ensure its survival because the only other option is defeat. An example of this can be seen in the American Civil War. Although President Lincoln is revered today by many as a hero, he blatantly violated the civil rights of American citizens by suspending the cannon of habeus corpus during wartime in order to maintain stability and isolate enemies within the country. His efforts were successful to some extent, although possibly morally unjust.
Although potentially morally questionable, governments must also be permitted to violate civil liberties in order to establish unity. Opponents of this argument might claim that a potentially oppressive government can only breed disunity as dissidents emerge. But if a government works properly to encourage unity and limit opposition, than dissidents should remain few. During wartime, it is necessary to have a country unified and dedicated to the war effort. This fact can be seen in the success of the United States during WWII when the majority of the country was dedicated to the war effort versus the relative failure of the United States during the Vietnam War as much of the country protested the violence. Unity also plays a role as the government requires the cooperation of academics in order to successfully win a war. In his article, Gibbs condemns this relationship. However, he fails to realize that the relationship is symbiotic, helping both parties to grow. Academics receive large amounts of funding in exchange for their cooperation with the government. For example, in the field of political science, the relationship has provided for more successful government actions not only limited to war as well as more jobs and ability to research for political science academics.
The world of war is not by any means an easy one. War is not a place for morals or complete adherence to Civil Rights, as can be seen throughout history. Instead, winning a war requires a government able to violate civil liberties due to the necessity to isolate enemies and establish unity during wartime in order to ensure the nation‘s future.
I liked some of the questions you raised in your essay especially when you suggest a balance between governmental power and civil liberties. But you say that governments should be able to intervene during times of trouble, and someone arguing for greater governmental power would say that that is exactly what they are suggesting. That being said, how would you suggest that such a balance be created? (so that either extreme couldn't suggest that you are arguing their point).
You do a good job of drawing examples for times when the government has had to violate civil liberties during war time which gives support to your thesis. However, you don't really explain why that is better for the country. Maybe explaining the impact those actions had and how they benefited the war effort would do the job.
In times of war, many feel the government should be allowed to do anything within its power to ensure victory. However, this means the government will be allowed to violate inherent rights to citizens of the state. Once one rate is violated, the government may be comfortable with violating more and more rights until the quality of life is severly restricted. Thus, during times of war, the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
Supporters of unlimited government power argue that infringing upon certain civil liberties will not harm the country or its citizens. The problem with this statement, however, is that if there is precedent for violating civil liberties during times of war, the government may act without any limitation to what rights it can violate. In doing so, many people may actually be harmed in the process. Such was the case during WWII when the government was profiling Japenese citizens, and met little resistance. Because the government was not challenged, it was easy for it to eventually place many Japense citizens into internment camps. To wrongfully imprison some one is a major violation of their civil liberties.
Another argument is the government has given citizens their liberties and it has the right to handle the liberties as it sees fit. It essence, the people serve the government. However, this line of thinking is the exact opposite of the basis by which this country was found. The original purpose of the government was to be a vessel to run this country at the disposal of its citizens. Thus, the government is actually suppose to be serving the people; and if the majority of the country feels asw though under no circumstance should their civil liberties be violated, then it is the government's responsibility to make sure that happens.
Many believe that infringing upon civil liberties will allow the country to be more effective in ensuring victory. However, this view is narrow minded. All the resources invested in violating civil liberties could be devoted to alternative means during war time. As a result, those sectors will be boosted, and possibly to the point where the become more effective than methods involving infringment of civil liberties ever could be. Before technology made violating privacy more attainable, the country had been doing well enough during times of war.
As a citizen of the United States, one is guaranteed all their civil liberties and a violation of any one of the is a federal offense. Regardless of the situation, the government, as stated in its own Constitution, has no right ignore these liberties. Which is way during war time, the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
I like how you used historical examples like FDR and the Nazis to prove your point. Someone could argue however that FDR and other historical examples of governments infringing on civil liberties DID win, possibly because of their "abuse" of power.
Civil liberties include, among other rights, the right of individuals to choose and practice their own religion, the right to own property, the right to privacy and the right to have fair trials. These are basic rights that no human being should ever have to give up. I disagree with the prompt. It is never permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
I do agree that certain rights and luxuries should be given up by citizens during times of war. For example there might be extra security protocols when traveling in, out and around a country at war. During periods of war it is also very likely that the government will set up state-of-emergencies and curfews. Certain geographical areas of a country may even be blocked off by the government and become inaccessible to pedestrians. These are all regular consequences of a war especially if the war is being fought on home soil. Citizens of no state can expect to live life in a completely unchanged manner during those times.
Although citizens should be expected to give up some of their rights during a war, it is not necessary for those citizens to have to give up their basic civil rights. A national curfew during times of war is important because it keeps pedestrians home and away from unnecessary risks, but infringing on civil right neither aids the government or citizens of a nation. For example, the freedom to practice any religion or the right to privacy has nothing to do with war. There is no cogent excuse for the government to infringe on civil liberties.
Civil liberty represents the core values of human society and it is the pride of democracies. Even if a government can somehow gain some sort of military advantage by infringing on it, civil rights should always be protected. It should remain free of collusion. Our civil liberties are the rights which allow us to live life as respectful humans. Arguably, the reason we have wars in the first place is to protect the civil liberties of citizens. In fact, the purpose current war against terrorism is to protect the freedom of citizens. Therefore, there is no point at all in having wars if we need to compromise our core values to be successful. There is no purpose of a war of we compromise the very thing we are often fighting for; the right to be free- civil rights.
In conclusion, war is no excuse for a government to infringe on the civil rights of its citizen. Besides the fact that civil rights are no buttress for the government during war, they represent the fundamental values of human society and should not be belied.
Mike, I like how you stood up against the prompt. I also like how you used historical examples to make your point and how you emphasized that winning a war is number one priority.
On December 15, 1791, the United States Bill of Rights was ratified. This document was created to protect our civil liberties such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right of due process. However, there have been times when these civil liberties have been ignored, especially during times of war. If the government continues to undermine the rights granted to us over 200 years ago, they risk a rebellion by the people of this country. Even though war is a tragic event that happens and the government wants to protect the people, it is not always permissible to infringe upon the civil liberties of the citizens. The two time periods of war that will be discussed in this paper are World War II and The War on Terror. During World War II, the attack at Pearl Harbor brought hysteria to the United States. As a result, 110,000 Japanese-Americans were relocated to internment camps for fear that their loyalty to the Emperor of Japan would cause greater troubles for the rest of the American people. At this time, there was much animosity towards the Japanese because of their prosperity in this country. Not only were the Japanese racially profiled but they were illegally imprisoned, which is expressed in the 14th and 6th amendments respectively. Our government was fully aware of infringing on the rights of citizens. Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, sought permission to conduct search and seizure operations against the Japanese and his request was denied by the Department of Justice, on the grounds of no probable cause. However, Franklin Delano Roosevelt enacted Executive Order 9066, which would give DeWitt the chance to do what he had requested earlier. Even though this was a time of war and there were a few Japanese-Americans who did commit acts against this country, it does not justify the actions of our government. In the end, this incident caused more harm than good. Infringement on the rights of citizens is not something that took place only during World War II but also now as our country is engaged in the War on terror. In March 2003, our country invaded Iraq as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. With this war came the Patriot Act, which gave government agencies more power to monitor telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. This Act deters the government from the ultimate goal of catching the terrorists. Most Americans are law abiding people who are here to live and not cause harm. By the government being so concerned with monitoring everyone they may miss the few individuals that they are looking for. What the government needs to do is be more concerned about how they are running their agencies like the CIA who have a faulty past. In the article by David Gibbs, he mentions the abusive human rights history of the CIA and how they conducted harmful research on people. Doing harmful things to the citizens of this country not only violates civil liberties but also challenges the ethics of the organization. The CIA also worked closely with Bin Laden in the late 70’s. This is disturbing because this would mean that the government is creating the problems that cause terrorist attacks and then expecting the American people to give up their liberties. The citizens should not have to suffer without their civil liberties because the government made the conscious effort to involve themselves with individuals who later cause destruction on our country. In conclusion, it is not always permissible for the government to infringe on the civil liberties. There are times when these infringements prove to cause more harm than good. Detaining 110,000 Japanese-Americans was wrong and the government tried to fix that by giving reparations. Now with the Patriot Act, there have still been random acts of terror on this country. It is evident that infringing on civil rights during war time is not having the desired effect the government was looking to achieve. Word Count: 670
Wartime brings about chaos and calls for quick action and thinking. This consist of finding the best resolution in order to solve the problem. As well as defending oneself with as minimal loss as possible. Some believe that during times of war there are no guaranteed protections of citizens, and civil liberties are free to be violated by the government. However, the constitution gives individual rights and does not offer exception under any circumstances. If we begin to make exceptions to when and where the law can be used citizens will become at risk for government violating laws in and out of wartime. To rectify this situation I will argue that infringing on civil liberties at times of war will result in a more lax commitment to upholding civil liberties outside of war.
It is evident that maintaining citizen’s civil liberties is not always possible during times of war. For example, if someone is thought to be harboring a terrorist the right to privacy will not be held in order to protect other citizens. But where do we draw the line in violating rights? When war is occurring the only legitimate need to infringe on citizen’s rights is if other lives are at risk. The government cannot sit back and allow others to be placed in harm’s way. It is the job of law enforcement and armed forced to protect them. But overall the need to violate individual civil liberties is minimal.
If we allow the government to infringe on our liberties we give them permission to overuse their power. We must be chary of this because it could lead to mistrust and or the loss of an organized government. As citizens we hold expectations of our government to not only protect us during times of war but make sure that our rights are not violated. In addition, one exemption leads to more exemptions. Looking back to the result of the September 11, 2001 attacks the right to privacy was immensely disregarded. This lead to the implementation of the Patriot Act, further reducing the right to privacy. Laws are in place to maintain order. Allowing laws to knowing be violated will create chaos especially during times of war.
In closing, the government must be careful not to overexert its power but to buttress those who they are serving: the citizens. Our administrations must commiserate with us and make us feel as if we are a number one priority during both times of war and during times of solitude. Americans do not want the government to become lax in advocating rights given to us by the constitution. As a result we must always acknowledge civil liberties.
I was slightly confused at which side you were taking in the beginning. In the second paragraph you mention that certain rights do need to be given up during war but then proceed discussing how no rights should not be given up in the remainder of the essay. You make a very good point that the war we are fighting now is to protect the rights of citizens so it would be hypocritical to violate civil liberty laws.
I like the way you back up your argument by providing examples. This examples make your thesis stronger. In addition I like how you use the article by Gibbs. At the end I think that by picking a side and proving that you have a point you have a really good essay.
@ Patrica I feel as though you had a solid arguement and that you made strong points for both the positive and the negative aspects of the prompt. I think to make your essay even stronger, outside examples would have been good to use. Overall your essay was well written.
@ Michael, The way you supported your argument with examples of the several wars that the USA has been involved, tied and explain your point of view in this issue. Also, it seems that you have a clear view way why the government sometimes has to violate human civil liberties when it comes time to defend the country. Also, I like how everything in your essay when back to your thesis of unity as a way to justify the need to violate certain civil liberties to bring peace and unity to the country.
The government acts as a protector of their citizens’ rights and liberties, although when war hits the country, the government seems to have the right to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens in order to control and find the way out of the situation. But if the government continues with this attitude, the citizens might see their participation as a canon rather than an act of patriotism, where they get to do it because they want to. Besides, this can create difficult situations, where citizens have to leave their opportunities to study or held back on reaching their goals in order to support their country. This should be the citizens’ decision and not the government’s. I do not agree that the government should always infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens in times of war.
However, some believe that it is the citizens’ obligation to help their country as a favor for all the rights this country has provided them with. In the other hand, some will disagree with this, since they believe that it should be an act of patriotism rather than an obligation. But if the government violates their liberties they might see this as a negative situation because they don’t have the right to decide whether or not they want to participate. There has been situation in history, when suddenly the government needs help in the army and it has forced teenagers to participate in the army by enlisting them. At the end, many deaths result from this because the teenagers were callow and were not prepared to confront the war at that level. Also, this people, which liberties are broken, might have to be in situations where they have to participate in studies or tests where other rights are been violated, in order to find a solution to a problem faced during war.
Moreover, this situation might take away the opportunities presented to the people since, instead in pursuing their goals and achieving them, they have to buttress their country and hold back their careers. Also, this might mean that if they participate helping their country they might have to study or prepared for something that they don’t like or would not have chosen if they have had a choice. Then, if they have the opportunity to go back and pick up where they left of, they might feel alienated because they don’t fit with the others surrounding them. The reason for this might be because they have been away from social life that they might be aghast with the idea of confronting the world after their experience on the war. The participation to support the country and the violation of civil liberties sometimes can be traumatizing for the participants of war. This is the reason why it is not necessary for the government to be always permissible when difficult times come, because it can create a society full of frustrations because of the things they have to go through to help the country.
In conclusion, sudden war and interventions from the government might lead them to violate the civil liberties of the citizens; therefore, this strategy might not be the best solution. This is why the government should now when and when not use these measures of authority over its citizens. In order to stop situations from getting worse or interfering with someone else’s goals, the participation should be voluntary instead of forcing them to participate even if they wanted to stay neutral in times of war.
In times of war it is permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Even thought some citizens will feel repulsion upon their government’s actions in the long run these actions could prevent farther impairment. If the government respects the civil liberties of its citizens to the fullest especially by providing classified information, the enemy will be prepare in case of any confrontation between both parties. I will argue how the abdication of civil rights benefits the nation.
The government has permission to infringe upon civil liberties because the protection of its citizens is more important than their civil liberties. For example if the government needs to decide between sharing confidential information about an operation to attack a communism leader and not sharing it. It will be safer to hide that information than sharing it because by sharing information there are several ways in which the communist leader can find out about the investigation and take actions against the government involved. By hiding information about certain investigations, the government is securing its citizens by preparing attacks in case of an invasion or attack from another government, and those pans will be confidential preventing any contra attack.
We as citizens should respect the government actions since we have decided to follow their rules once we integrate ourselves into the system and even if we don’t want to follow the system we are being force to do so, otherwise we will be punished. We want to make sure that our government follows the rules too, but sometime that is just impossible because in some cases following respecting all laws and/or liberties could situate the nation at risk. That is why sometimes we have to abdicate certain liberties in the name of our nation. Sometimes we might not agree to whatever the government is doing but even though we might not like it and it might sound terrible it will facilitate the development of our nation. The government was design to protect its people and even though citizens have certain liberties the government has to decide what is more important for its citizens and in some cases these liberties may be infringe.
In every nation and for all governments the protection of their citizens is their priority, since their citizens are the main component of both the government and the nation. We as citizens have the right to know the actions of our government but if keeping certain actions will benefit our nation, we should acquiesce to the abdication of those liberties.
@ Kyle You defended your paint fairly and supported it with great examples. It was easy to follow due to its structure. I agree to your idea of having flexible regulation in the government, you point out how there are many thing that can go wrong if we restrict the government to a specific system and I see how having flexible regulations can be beneficial to our nation.
In Palko v. Connecticut, Justice Cardozo wrote that some rights ‘rank as fundamental in our concept of ordered liberty.’ Since Palko, the scope of fundamental rights has more broadly been applied to privacy, found to exist as a right in the “penumbras” of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Where some have argued that civil liberties are secondary to national security and the common defense, others have held individual liberties are fundamental and define our national character. Without government restraint, broad exercise of state power can restrict individual privacy and individual rights, and impose majority viewpoints on minorities. Maintaining the rights guaranteed by the Constitution during wartime creates a framework for acceptable incursion into privacy and fundamental freedoms and does not create a conflict with the state’s interest in security.
The debate over whether or not to permit wiretapping on American citizens illuminates the discussion over wartime civil liberties expectations. It has been claimed that the wiretapping is a necessity because of the government’s interest in obtaining needed information about potential terrorist targets and organizations. Privacy advocates however, note that indiscriminate, warrantless tapping of phone conversations represent a broad overreach of state powers into individual freedoms. Since 1968, the Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy as an implicit right found in the shadows of several Amendments within the U.S. Constitution. The framers understood the need for the state to protect its citizens, but they also enumerated various freedoms that could not be abridged. The right to carry a private phone conversation is among these rights, and if the government has a legitimate reason to tap a phone record, all they need to obtain is a warrant from a magistrate judge. Without a court order to conduct an investigation, the tapping of phones incurs into privacy rights without demonstrating reason. Inevitably, the impermissible, broad exercise of state power is outside the framework established in the Constitution.
Other freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights also protect citizens from the imposition of majority-rule. In West Virginia v. Barnett, Justice Jackson wrote: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities.” In striking down a West Virginia law forcing public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance during World War II, Jackson found that minority opinions in opposition of war can be crushed by state mandates that individuals recite the pledge. Although wartime is a sensitive time that may demand national unity for the state to conduct war, squashing minority opinions infringes on fundamental rights. It is also possible that minority opinions expressed in the free marketplace of ideas can appeal to the majority, and directly influence change in policy or conduct of war.
Broad exercise of state power in war, without a framework that protects certain rights, risks incurring on fundamental freedoms. The Constitution, and the process for obtaining warrants to violate an individual’s privacy in the conduct of investigations, establishes the boundaries and limits of state authority. States have every right to protect their citizens, but citizens have every right to protect themselves from unlawful state interference. Fortunately, those rights of individuals to protect themselves from imposition by the state are established in a living framework where the state needs to prove that there is a reason that state interests supersede individual liberties. Those procedures are established in the Bill of Rights.
I cut out the section about the CIA because Blogger said "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters" (it wasn't above 4,096 characters). Word Count: 650
@Josefina: I liked your discussion of the draft, but I think you could have expanded on the idea of what the draft means in terms of the state imposing a viewpoint on people (the viewpoint being, you have to fight this war).
@Mark: well I disagree with your essay's position, but I think it was cogent overall (YOU BETTER GET THAT WORD RIGHT ON THE GRE QUIZ). However, I don't think the Japanese internment example really made your point.
For centuries there has been great debate about whether or not it is acceptable to suspend civil liberties during times of war or domestic threat. Some people say that the suspension of civil liberties is necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. However, there is fault in following this line of thought which can lead to a general complacency about being relieved of rights even in times that are not considered “wartime” or “threatening”. If it is acceptable to suspend our rights some of the times, this can escalate beyond its initial intention. In this essay I will argue that it is never permissible for the government to infringe upon its citizens’ civil liberties. This has been proved through various events such as President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus rights during the Civil War and the Second Red Scare events led by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights; those who were taken as military or political prisoner were not required to know for what reason they were in prison or for how long. Many historians have argued that President Lincoln can be forgiven of this misstep because he was dealing with a country divided, open warfare, and because he had promised to re-instate habeas corpus rights as soon as the war was over. However, Lincoln disobeyed the law, which allows Congress the right to suspend these rights, not the President. This essentially raised the possibility of the President who has overriding authority to both branches of government. In the Merryman case, John Merryman was a Confederate sympathizer who was accused of treason. His judge issued a habeas corpus write because there was little if any evidence that he was committing the acts they charged him with. President Lincoln ignored this order which outraged the judge. Ultimately, Merryman was never even tried in the military court system or at all. This shows a waste of resources, a lack of sufficient evidence, and a questionable action on behalf of those in power. Actions such as President Lincoln’s have paved the way for other suspensions of liberties such as Japanese internment camps during World War II and for Guantanamo Bay arrests that are still being carried out.
After World War II, the United States was experiencing a serious fear of communism including it being spread by Russian sympathizers. McCarthyism, as the events would later come to be known, were the unsubstantiated accusations made by those in the government against other government officials and sometimes civilians who were thought to be fraternizing with the Russians or even Chinese Communists. Although some people may argue that McCarthyism was acceptable because the U.S. had found spies in the government before, such as the case with the Rosenbergs who were passing along classified information in regards to atomic bombs and other weaponry to the Russians. However these incidents, no matter how large, could never make such laws such as the Smith Act; knowingly or willfully teaching the overthrow of the government, the Communist Control Act; which outlawed all Communist activities and gave them no rights, and the Taft-Hartley Act; which denied trade unions NLRB protection unless they signed that they had never been Communists, acceptable. Because of these acts numerous government officials, reporters, television personalities, and more lost their careers. The negative effects of these actions is clear; an anti-immigration sentiment, an understanding that one individual can gain massive power in government when taking advantage of widespread paranoia, and the endorsement by the U.S. government of not allowing freedom of speech or opinions if it was contrary to the national security agenda.
Once again, the damage of these actions is far greater than the benefits of suspending civil liberties. From both Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus in the 19th century and the numerous amounts of legislation passed after World War II to counter Communist “threats” to the States, it is apparent the overwhelmingly negative outcomes of these measures. When, even for a short period, civil liberties are ignored and cast aside, it paves the way for future decisions that endanger the rights of citizens and the democratic way of life. Others may argue that there are certainly times where these rights may be breached, however history has shown the latter to be true; that it is far more effective to preserve them in their entirety to maintain public morale and find legal, democratic ways of handling the pressures and problems of war and times of threat to our nation. We are at a critical moment in our nation’s history when trying to balance national security with civil liberties, but there is no room for cutting corners. Liberties must remain fully intact and so must the efforts to keep our nation safe and prosperous. Now, not only war is a time for questioning our rights, but also terrorism presents itself as a new kind of threat that some say requires infringement of rights. However we must continue to look for new ways to deal with our security issues without creating new civil liberty issues at home.
@SC^2 I do not understand how the argument that the government keeping information private is supporting the idea of infringement upon civil liberties. Are you implying that withholding information is an infringement? I also feel as though your essay would have been better with more concrete examples such as the Patriot Act, or something that would have showcased the government taking away liberties for the "greater good". Also, I think you should try to restate the thesis more in your conclusion and summarize your essay again. I like how you discussed the social contract theory - that citizens give up sovereignty to a government. Good thinking!
It is argued that in times of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. In many instances, at first glance, this may seem to be the appropriate measures to ensure protection and security. However it is important to consider the long-term effects on civil liberties, and what will result if the people concede to constant exceptions. If the government successfully realizes and executes a plan that infringes on the public’s rights and liberties, we run the risk that these infringements and exceptions will occur more often and for longer periods. To rectify our thinking we must first weigh other options and then fully understand the long-term risks of the temporal acquiescence to civil rights infringements. In doing so, the key component of this issue is the government’s ability to monitor and control civil liberties. Once the government has gained that control over creating exceptions to the case and deciding when and how they will implement their plans, we will see an ultimate increase and broader spectrum dealing with what infringements will be tolerated and how much our liberties will be compromised. Throughout the history of our government there have been many times when we have turned a blind eye to corrupt practices, and have silently agreed to compromise our rights. It has only been when we have given up all control over our civil liberties that the passage of certain laws and the engagement in certain actions that have a lasting effect on our rights have been seen through. Due to the fear that had been instilled into the American people by the government post September 11, the passage of the US Patriot Act has allowed for reduced restrictions on the presence and abilities of law enforcement agencies. This act has allowed for much greater access to personal information, as well as has had a huge impact on immigrants and persons from the Middle East. Since the passage of the act, anyone of Middle Eastern descent, even if they are American citizens, are interrogated and profiled as potential terrorists. This type of racial profiling severely treads on the rights of these individuals, also allowing for a greater police presence. Interestingly so, since the passage of the Patriot Act we have seen greater movement for the passage of more legislation that facilitates under the guise of fear and protection. Most recently this is illustrated in the case of the Arizona SB1070 law, which also allows for greater policing involvement and is followed through via racial profiling. It is important to note that the Patriot Act was passed after the war on terrorism was declared, and was a direct response to the Middle Eastern terrorist organization that purportedly planned and followed through on the 9/11 attack. However, the Arizona Immigration Act has no connection to the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an example of how the government gained control and ultimately used their exception ability to implement more legislation that compromises civil liberties.
In conclusion, it is important to look at the long term effects of allowing more government control. We have since allowed for greater policing and have conceding to racially profiling persons of Middle Eastern descent and more recently any person that looks Mexican. If we continue to allow for these exceptions because of the fear our government is instilling, then it is possible that in the near future our definition of civil liberties will be completely limited and modified, because we will no longer have the rights we once had.
In times of war, it is important for the government to utilize all available resources. America, unlike other countries, allows for a high level of individual freedom. Many U.S. citizens are given the opportunity to make their own academic choices and decide whether they want to serve in the military. In respect to wars and other bellicose situations, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Although this infringement is not ideal for the citizen involved, it is a necessary step in protecting the general welfare of the people. While David Gibbs may argue that CIA covert practices “are contrary to and deeply corrosive of some of the most basic standards of academic integrity,” it is important to understand why the CIA requires secrecy. This secrecy has allowed to CIA to engage in advance specified policy objectives without jeopardizing their identity. The CIA, as a growing force on academic campuses, offers a wide range of opportunities to the researchers involved while protecting the security the participants involved as well as the security of the nation.
Over the course of several decades, the CIA’s has provided students with research and financial opportunities. Because of the CIA’s interaction with academy, better and safer research practices have been developed. MKULTRA is among one of the many projects that demonstrate inhumane treatment of test subjects. Although full details of the project are not known, this research was carried out in hospitals and universities across the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result of these inhumane projects carried, many academic researchers have to undergo full scale research approval. At the University of Delaware, graduate students and other researchers are required to seek approval through services like the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before they can legally engage in human or animal testing.
As a tradeoff for contributing to CIA-related research, Gibbs mentions that “the CIA has created a special scholarship program, for graduate students able and willing to obtain security clearances.” In terms of infringing on the civil liberties of citizens, yes, the student may be held accountable for maintaining government confidentiality. However, limitations on civil liberties like freedom of speech are willingly agreed upon by the student in return for being a CIA scholarship recipient. These practices are very similar to a clinical Registered Dietitian or other hospital employees, who operate under the Privacy Rule of the Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This act regulates confidentiality of patient information and restricts the release of patient information to third parties including family members. Like student researchers, a Registered Dietitian cannot release private information unless a Federal warrant has been issued. The CIA’s interaction with colleges and universities limits the civil liberties of involved researchers or other members in order to keep their operation confidential. Academic integrity must be sacrificed to avoid information “leaks”. While the government did take away certain liberties, these members chose to be a part of covert research and must therefore adhere to the CIA’s guidelines.
In a covert project, the only way to gather internal information from the outside is by “leaking” information. Gibbs argues that “another problem with the Agency is its extreme secretiveness and lack of public accountability… [which] extends to the CIA’s involvement with the academy”. Gibbs also emphasizes how difficult it is for faculty members and other researchers to obtain classified information. Consider how detrimental it would be if political science started including covert operation in their data sets to eliminate selection bias. Yes, internal criticism may be addressed. But the “leaked” information need to support political science could be specifically detrimental to our wellbeing if the information is placed in the hands of the enemy. Therefore, it is necessary for the government to infringe the civil liberties of those citizens involved in covert projects.
The CIA’s collaboration with academics is to ultimately protect national security. Although the actions of the CIA are often criticized, the benefits of CIA and academic collaboration outweigh its dangers. The CIA is utilizing academics to combat terroristic attacks and other operations. In return for confidentiality, the researcher, especially graduate students are reaping the benefits of the CIA’s scholarships and potential job opportunities.
Word Count: 711
@Jazzy
Interesting viewpoint. I particularly enjoyed your responses about the government’s overuse of their power, civil liberty infringement and its relation to the Patriot Act. It was evident after the September 11th attack that the government needs to know where to draw the line between national security and infringement as well as knowing the minimal privacy invasion is attainable.
We are all familiar with the philosophical quote “the ends justify the means,” which is used to qualify using unusual methods to achieve one’s goals. There have been numerous occasions in our nation’s history when the government employed this method of thinking to substantiate the methods they used to get out of a difficult situation. When governments are caught in convoluted, often time-sensitive bellicose situations, it is easy for many to justify the actions of the government when infringing on the civil liberties of its citizens. If allowed to exercise total freedom without fear of repercussion the government may endanger the lives of its citizens. The debate about how much government interference on civil liberties is reasonable has cogent arguments on both ends of the spectrum. Today I will show that the government should not interfere on the civil liberties of its citizens; however, due to time constraints and societal pressures it [the government] often does.
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to imprison a number of southern seceders without due process. He did this because he felt it was the only way to save the union during a time of great stress and turmoil. While he ultimately accomplished his goal of preserving this fragile new country, he did so at the expense of being condemned for denying the liberties of the country’s citizens. Why was this route chosen by the nineteenth century US president? Perhaps because he knew that going through a more conventional route would have taken too much time. During a time of national crises, the government often uses a broad interpretation of its role to accomplish its goals.
The US government is a system composed of ambitious people who are willing to acquire as much power as they can. The federal government was formed to prevent the abuse of power the framers experienced from Great Britain. In order to avoid rule from a tyrannical government, the US government was divided into three branches. Each branch had separate spheres of influence where they had jurisdiction, but each also had the power and responsibility to be sure the other branches weren’t exceeding their boundaries. Although the enumerated powers have been defined by the constitution for over 200 years the government must continue to be monitored for potential abuses. In 2002, President George W. Bush announced a global War on Terrorism. As commander-in-chief the president has the power to control the national armed forces, but it is not within his power to declare war. Nonetheless, that is essentially what he did during his 2002 State of the Union address. The power to declare war is one vested in the body of Congress, but the circumstances surrounding the recent terror attacks and the desire of many Americans to do something, in essence, nullified the former president’s unconstitutional actions.
In a perfect world, the government would never overstep their boundaries and respect the liberties of its people at all times, but that is not always the case. The constitution does not qualify the rights of citizens to only apply during peacetime, but this is the canon of how our rights are viewed. Unfortunately, it is difficult to say how to solve this problem, because due to the timeliness of preparing for war it seems unconstitutional behavior like that of presidents Lincoln and Bush will continue to be practiced.
@ Jazzy You argued a very concise and well defined argument. Your example of the Patriot Act really illustrated your argument very well and did not detract from your main point. You had a clear and focused voice throughout the essay which made it easy to follow your line of thinking.
After the 9/11 attacks Americans a war started between US and Al-Qaeda. This event brought Americans together and many risk their lives and were sending to Iraq to fight for their country. Some of the reasons why they were send to Iraq are they want to fight for their country, they were worried about the safety of America and its families and they were proud to be Americans and they understood that it was an honor to fight and buttress for their country. However, if citizens are send to the battlefield without their consent this will cause other problems because first, the US will show that it violates rights it gives to its citizens, second, if the citizens are not happy and are send to the war their behavior could change once in the battlefield and finally by being away these citizens will are deprived of their families.
People think that the canon is for Americans have the right of this country to go and fight in foreign country. As citizens they have the responsibility to stand up for their country and provide safety to their families. However, the U.S. should not be talking about the responsibilities citizens have because the US violates the rights these citizens for example their consent of whether or not to go to war. Citizens are giving certain rights as citizens and their right to choose whether or not to fight in the war should be up to each person and not be decided by the government who will not be fighting in the battlefield.
Some citizens are proud when they are sent away to fight for their country. But there are some exceptions that are not happy about being at the war and there are some good reasons for this. They are aware of all the dangers and know that they may die in a foreign country. When these people are not happy about being in the war this have an effect in how they behave in the battlefield. They may not kill the enemy because they are not happy or proud to be there and they may not want to kill innocent people who are not responsible for this war. This will not benefit the country but will cause more problems because if the soldier is not willing to kill the enemy then the enemy will kill some of our soldiers.
When soldiers are away their main focus is to fight the enemy and protect their country. They work as a team and are all one to provide safety to their families. However, these soldiers give up a lot of things like family when they are away. Family is one of the most important foundations of the American life and these soldiers miss important family occasions that will not come again. For example, his wives give birth to a baby, his child starts to talk and he missed the graduation of his child. These are occasions that are important to a father, brother or uncle and people miss because they have to fight for their country.
There is no doubt that safety and pride are cogent reasons why a person should be force to go to the war. However, there are other factors that should be taken into account when a life will be change and others will be affected by this decision. The government should not infringe the rights of its citizens in times of war because these rights are what define America. Americans enjoy liberties and have rights that other countries do not give to its citizens. It is anti-American to violate the rights the government gives to its citizens.
As our society finds itself once again entrenched in a long standing war against a foreign ideology, the argument of whether or not the government has the right to infringe on civil liberties has arisen. While our nation was founded on the protection of natural rights and the establishment of individual liberties, for a country to successfully wage war and protect its citizens, it must be able to make infringements on civil rights. Those who are opposed to the government infringing on civil liberties cite the constitution and the values on which are country was founded, however even in the revolutionary war, civil liberties were suspended for the greater good. This has continued for almost every war that America has served in since the revolutionary war. Upholding of certain civil liberties such as completely unrestricted free speech is often counter-productive to the war effort and can result in lowered moral, the spread of false information, and a feeling of disunity. During the world war two, civil liberties were restricted by limiting of speech, the rationing of all consumables, and the use of the draft to fill ranks. Without these infringements on civil liberties, it can be argued that America would not have been able to produce the resources needed to fight a war in two separate theaters simultaneously and emerge victorious. The most debated civil liberty that is infringed upon in war time is the supposed right to privacy established by the fourth amendment. This amendment was designed to prevent unlawful searches and seizures, but has been transformed into an overall guarantee of privacy of one’s property and conduct. The debate in has risen in America, after the passing of the Patriot Act by President Bush that allowed the government to listen to phone conversations of suspected terrorist without a warrant. While many claim this violates the civil liberty of privacy, its application does not as their shouldn’t be an expectation that communications of any sort should be guaranteed private. Furthermore methods such as these are necessitated to counter an enemy that has become unconventional and is skilled at infiltrating a countries civil population. The law has led to the successful apprehension and detainment of terrorist within the United States that planned on targeting civilians. While a government should never be able to constantly infringe on its citizens civil liberties or completely remove them, times of war necessitate the temporary suspension or modification of these rights for the greater good of national security. Without the ability to temporarily infringe on civil liberties, many governments would be limited to addressing unconventional enemies with conventional methods, which may result in the worse infringement on civil liberties possible, the right to live.
Word count 446
@Michael D. You made a very good point in arguing the benefits that academics has received from being funded by the government. While some research has probably been biased due to the source of funding, I’m sure our International Policy has been shaped in a positive way by the work done by the multiple research centers started with government funds.
The government does not have the right to curtail the civil liberties of citizens during times of war. Losing civil liberties does guarantee that security will be enhanced and that the protection of the citizens will be achieved. The lose of one civil liberty will lead to a slippery slope where other civil liberties can be lost as it becomes more difficult to retain The loss of a civil liberty such as freedom of speech could lead to an environment where the media could be controlled by the government. Controlling the content that people receive is a very powerful tool that can be used to push agendas. The Iraq war was started on the premise that the Iraq possessed weapons of mass distraction. The news media covered this looming threat, only to demonstrate that presidents Bush’s fear mongering had little credence behind it. If the government controlled what people could say or report on, the American people will be continually lead into pointless wars. Over the course of president bush’s presidency the powers of the executive branch of government increased at the expensive of the civil liberties the American people had. Wiretapping of citizens without proper legal procedure or the need for a just cause was an invasive step by the American government. This power provided by the “Patriot Act” can be exploited to no end and be used against individuals that might not agree with the current administrations agenda. World War II brought the issue of internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. The unjust detainment of American citizens to protect the United States from potential spies demonstrates another period where the American government has gone too far. If this practice would be extended to our current times, would it be just to have people of Middle Eastern descent retained in camps? Most would agree that it would not be a just thing to do. The potential of the government to select out a group to keep in internment camps violates the rights and liberties of the citizens the government is set to protect. During times of war, a country will undergo several changes that reflect the changing times and conflict it chooses to pursue. The government should not use these times to expand its power at the expense of its citizens.
Because of the social and ethical unrest that occurs during times of war, some may believe that "it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens". or disagree with this entirely. The pressing times of war that fuels this ambivalence cannot go unacknowledged. Although war presents variables that forces government officials to act with alacrity and justifiably, these actions must take care not to be too rash or illogical. If we allow the government to infringe upon civil liberties, a potential schism between the opinions and welfare of society may occur. Furthermore, a worse result of this schism could lead to anarchy, weakening a country rather than fortifying it. Therefore, although war may ask of its citizens to cooperate in certain manners to protect the nation as a whole, it is unjustifiable that the government should always infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
Times of war may require citizens to act in cooperation with government; however, it is not always necessary to infringe upon civil liberties in this cooperative process. Because of the events of September 11th, America has been forced to retreat into a defensive state where the protection of citizens is a major priority . This has caused areas that contain large amounts of diverse people passing through it, such as airports, to be on high alert of any suspicious activity. Although this is a logical response to the tragedy, suspicious activity has lead to major discriminatory acts such as stopping completely innocent people that resemble what we associate as "terrorists" in airports and other public places. Because civil liberties is the freedom that this melting-pot nation was built upon, the realization that it is not always necessary to infringe upon these liberties during times of war is important for the welfare and morale of a nation.
Although the protection of citizens is a priority during times of war, protection can easily become communist-like control if taken too far. An example of this in American society today is the Patriot Act. Although the events of September 11th presented our nation with a major need to fight back and prevent an analogous tragedy from occurring again, our civil liberties and privacies have been put through the fire. All communications that transpire throughout the nation are now recorded and accounted for. If not treated with care, this act may lead government officials to turn weak towards their avarice for more power and control, creating a communist nation instead of a free one.
Always allowing the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens may cause severe social unrest, to the point of a coup. This is most clearly conveyed in Cuba's history. Communism within Cuba was originally intended to not only protect the welfare of its people, but to create equality throughout the nation. However, instead of using certain infringements of the civil liberties of its citizens for the better, the situation erupted into a series of revolutionary attacks due to the social unrest of the citizens during this time. For this reason, although war may present a necessity for citizens to cooperate accordingly, civil liberties must be upheld to a certain degree in order to prevent severe social unrest that may lead to revolutionary actions within the nation.
Finally, due to the social unrest and discrimination that can stem from the consistent infringement of civil liberties during times of war, nations that exercise these liberties must take care in their judgements and decisions made during these times. If the infringement of civil liberties becomes always essential for protection, a nation may experience its own induced tragedies.
When faced with the grueling decision to declare war, governments must take many factors into account; from the likelihood of being successful to how it will impact its citizens to the economy. Governments are also faced with the question; it is permissible to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens? The answer is no, civil liberties have been established and serve a valuable purpose for a nations citizens.
During any war time the goal of government is to come home victorious and to have the unwavering support of its citizens and very few dissidents. To allow governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of citizens is the gateway to many injustices. While in times of war it may be necessary to implement certain restrictions or changes to ensure the safety of citizens, however these should remain within reasonable limits. For example imposing a curfew or requiring that citizens become more sustainable with resources. Not crossing the line of violating the essential civil liberties, such as the right to free speech.
The purpose of the government is to protect and maintain order, to allow for a productive and functioning society. This has been achieved by establishing legislation. In times of war this standard should not change. As a citizen of a nation it is without saying that one should be a law abiding citizen and respect the civil liberties of others and the institution of government, so it is only right that the government show the same respect in return. To allow the government to violate civil liberties, especially in America would be a slap in the face to all those who came before this generation. Many figures in history have worked so hard and sacrificed immensely in order for citizens to have the rights we often take for granted today. Many things like one’s right to vote, to drive or walk anywhere at any time or one’s right to bear arms.
Times of war should be taken seriously and the safety of citizens of a nation should always be the first priority of government, not the right to infringe upon the civil liberties of citizens because they have the authority to do so. Most would argue that during such a crucial time it becomes necessity but where do you draw the line? Government should not be treating its own citizens like the enemy, however should be working to unify the nation in an unstable time. *Word Count: 406
There is a catholic argument as to whether or not the government has the permission to violate the rights of its citizens during war. Governments are charged with the job of protecting its citizens from foreign and internal threats but at what cost. In this paper, I will argue that governments (focusing on the United States) should not have the ability to breach the rights of its citizens.
America as we know it was founded on people refusing to have their rights infringed on by an unlawful government. The Declaration of Independence states, “… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…” Due to our founders declared independence from the British government, we cannot allow the government to walk on our rights. Some might counter that when Thomas Jefferson wrote this there was no war. However, I argue that anytime when the government is using its power to alienate people it is a time of war.
The Declaration of Independence also states that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The key word in this passage is consent because if the people disagree on what the government is doing we have the right to fight against it. I am not saying that there should be anarchy but that we can change the government to be auspicious. The major argument for the other side is that govern mental actions against rights have saved lives in cases like the Patriot Act. However, how many people were wrongly accused of crimes based on their ethnicity or appearance. Also this act gave the government the ability to obtain personal communication systems of people throughout the United States. People have the freedom of speech and also to not be worried about whether or not an FBI agent is listening to their conversation. The Patriot Act gave the government more powers without really consulting the people due to its hastily passing through the Senate after 9/11. In additional point is how do the governments define war time? If it is defined by whether or not soldiers are stationed in other countries and are being killed than most governments are always in war time. In this case, than the government is always infringing upon its people’s rights and there will be no end to this epidemic.
In summary, governments should not be able to infringe upon their citizens civil liberties for the reasons of the country’s foundation, freedom of speech, and fact that there is always war. These facts suppress the counter argument because the people will be affected by the governments overbearing presence in society.
While we have different views on the argument, I can appreciate your stance. You used very valid and strong examples in history to present a strong argument. I really like your WWII example.
I like your point of communism and how it has affected Cuba. This is a very strong argument however it would have been nice to have some more facts to buttress your thesis. Also the statement about the Patriot Act and vocabulary usage really developed your statement.
Civil rights and liberties issues often serve as some of the most common reasons for debate and conflict. America and other “New World” societies were founded on the idea that these rights should be broader and uncompromised. Historically, these issues became the root of revolution and war but more recently the antipodal statement is true as war causes changes in civil liberties. It has been proposed, that "In times of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens" but those who agree with this broad statement forget that such permission often does more harm than good, exceptions always exist, and limits of this power need to be established. By glossing over these facts, supporters miss the great propensity for harm to be done based upon such a statement.
While extension of the power of the government and enforcement agencies may assist in the protection of citizens, the programs and laws that allow it often do more harm than good. During the Cold War, Senator Joe McCarthy and his committee routed out many Communist sympathizers and supporters who could potentially have been Russian spies; the majority of the actions taken against these people were later overturned, declared illegal, and the term associated with process, McCarthyism, is now used politically to castigate those claims made without proper proof. More recently, the Patriot Act that was signed into law in 2001 gained heavy criticism and led to public mistrust of the government as news of misuse of information found through the wire taps it authorized surfaced. Programs that increase government capabilities and restrict civil liberties often gain the buttress they need in times of war but rarely produce the desired result in as little as one fourth of the situations in which power is used.
Even though there are some situations where sacrifices in civil liberties have resulted in the desired positive results, there is no ground for saying that such action “is always permissible.” Anytime rights are taken away the cause for it should be evaluated based upon the situation at hand and its associated threats and benefits. Allowing for broad shifts simply based on government’s job to serve as an aegis to its citizens gives loopholes for tyrannical policies. During World War II, the US government placed all Japanese Americans in internment camps. Besides having to apologize and pay for it years later, the military had to reconsider this broad assumption of the risk posed by every citizen in the group and ended up training and using all-Issei units to fight in the both theaters during the war. The government could have avoided chagrin and guilt by evaluating the threat posed by each citizen or family individually. In more extreme cases, the Nazi’s ability to infringe upon the liberties of its citizens resulted in the deaths of millions without any legitimate reason. Allowing for rights to be given and taken in any wartime situation is dangerous for the short and long term
The case of Nazi detention facility clearly shows the need for limits on any government power. Since the government does the limiting of civil liberties, it is counterproductive for it to also take on the responsibility of seeing that the power isn’t taken too far. In this country, our system of checks and balances generally makes this okay since the Congress allows the extra latitude to the Executive branch while it and the Judicial branch have the ability to ensure that its used properly. In many other countries, all power rests with one group making an endorsement like the statement a very dangerous trigger to a potentially destructive series of events. Oppressive political regimes in South America, Africa and some Asian nations have used similar doctrine to imprison political enemies on false grounds and to gain land or other resources for personal gain. Limits help improve public confidence in government by protecting against abuses.
Civil rights and liberties, often fought for, are granted with good reason. Anytime they are taken away, limits upon the extent of removal should be established along with adequate evidence of the necessity. This way any harm done can be truly justified contextually and major offenses have a better chance of being avoided.
@ Ariel I agree with your position and like how you used the article to really buttress your argument. You brought up a good point about the definition of "wartime".
Former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded” (Gibbs 1). As “everyday” Americans we are rarely ever called upon to give our opinion on the critical issues that often pose a significant change to our lives. As an example, controversial debate has emerged from the idea that in time of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Some would argue that this is indeed true; and that we as citizens must make sacrifices to ensure our personal safety and the overall well being of our country. However, what seems to be a popular wartime belief is now more than ever becoming an ever so distasteful reality in the minds of many, which ignores and at times infringes the notion of inalienable citizen rights in the United States. Ultimately, we as Americans are faced with two choices. We come to the realitization and accept that to avoid living in fear from the alarming threats by terrorist we must give up some rights in return for protection. On the other side of the spectrum, we can come together and voice our opinions to public leaders and share on the negative impact organizations such as the CIA pose on the lives U.S citizens. Hence this debate, I shall argue for the preceding idea with a focus on the world of academia and its relationship with the CIA; that we as U.S citizens must give up some rights to an extent, in order to maintain the security and safety we as Americans have always enjoyed. If we do not put aside our ambivalent emotions aside and engrave this idea into our heads, we will be met with a situation that may prove to be similar if not worse than September 11. Although U.S government organizations such as the CIA have remained ever so secretive and still in their actions, performed studies etc they are today taking a new approach more than ever before. Today we are seeing a strong cooperative relationship which one could argue is a result of coming to the conclusion that we must give up some rights to ensure our country’s overall safety and security. This not new, but rather more frequent relationship is one which has risen between the world of academia and the CIA. According to David Gibbs in his article titled the “CIA is Back on Campus” he states, “In the new atmosphere of patriotic commitment, American academics have been called upon to serve in the war against terrorism--especially by serving as consultants to the Agency” (Gibbs 1). Throughout the article Gibbs argues that this relationship should be non-existent and makes references to the activities of the CIA, and how they conflict with the world of academia. For example he refers to the notion that academia is suppose to have a measure of freedom or as he says “independence” from the state. He writes that professors in the social sciences must be able to analyze and present findings of official policy. As a result this close relationship between the world of academia and the CIA compromise the possibility for such criticism to take place. However, I firmly believe that this criticism must be put to use. Certainly professors may feel obliged to offer words of support rather than opposition. But what if this criticism could help the CIA manifest into something better or assist them in performing operations better. Rather than stick to the long standing ideals of doing things one way could be replaced with the idea of doing something another way, one in which only the bright and exploratory mind of a professor at a university could think of.
I thought you made a strong argument based on how you felt. You gave examples to help grasp the idea you were writing about. Although are ides seem somewhat different, I respect your opinion because of the view you provided.
In times of war and crisis it is always permissible for the government to infringe upon the rights of its citizens if it is for good of its people. As defined in this country, the role of government is to protect its citizens to the best of its abilities. In his article “The CIA is back on Campus” author David N. Gibbs argues against the involvement of the government in the fields of academia, claiming it to be an abuse of professional talent. But it is a well-known fact that war is a major driving force behind the development of new technologies and processes that otherwise would have taken years to discover or mass-produce. The truth is that if the good of the people is better served by the infringement of their civil liberties then the government has accomplished its chief task towards its people- their safety. During the time of war a major concern of both the government and the military of any given country is the leaking of important information that can be utilized by the enemy. On many occasions, the United States has enforced the Sedition Act in which the civil rights of freedom to the press and speech are limited. In light of the enforcement of the Sedition Act, is it more important to protect the rights of individuals or the good of the people as a whole. Is it more important to protect the freedom of speech and press or risk the possibility that the enemy discovers the location of your fleet or troops, or even the future plans for your military? As the famous saying goes, “Lose lips sink ships”, if the better of a nation is better served by the suspension of certain civil rights during a time of war then that should be the course of action for a government. Another point to consider in the situation of the prompt that was posed this week are the preventive measures that a government can take to assure the safety of its citizens. It is true that in this country many people feel it is a civil right to attend to their private affairs the outside of the view of the government. But what about activities that endanger the lively hood of other citizens, shouldn’t the government have the capabilities to prevent disasters before they can happen. Now, opponents to the motion that the government should have more access to “private” information would advocate that it is under the rights of the citizens to maintain their own affairs private. But what would a law-abiding citizen have to hide from the government if they conduct themselves in a legal and respectable manner? And wouldn’t it be worth suspending some civil rights if it meant the prevention of another terrorist attack? The truth is that the war between the rights of the individual citizen and the good of the people as a whole will continue well into the future. But the point that must remain clear is that the sole role of any government is to keep its citizens safe in times of danger and during times of war. With this being said, civil liberties- in times of war, may and should be suspended for the greater good of the people as a whole.
@ Ariel I really liked your argument and thought that you made a valid point with the quotes from the declaration of Independence. But has you said, isn't it the role of government to protect its people in a time of crisis? While the declaration states that we have the right to change our government if we fell that it is not serving our needs as citizens, times of war change everything, and if it means that the good of the people is better served with a temporary suspension of some liberties then isn't it worth the sacrifice?
During times of great uncertainty for public security, the government must take action to both re-establish order and provide protection for its people. As such, in circumstances of war or conflict, the government often creates regulations in order to secure areas and establishes laws in efforts to protect the public. While these measures appear necessary in order to protect citizens, there is much debate about the extent to which the government may regulate individuals and infringe upon their rights. This is because many protective measures call for restrictions of certain freedoms, yet without some restrictions there is limited protection that the government can provide. This debate raises an important question, when should individual rights come before security for all? Based on past conflicts, individuals seem willing to follow sensible security procedures during times of war. However, individuals would not find it permissible to infringe upon the civil liberties such as freedom of speech, privacy, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure during times of war. Freedom of speech is an important liberty to individuals overall, but is especially significant during times of war. This liberty gives individuals the right to speak about their position and thoughts about conflicts that occur. This right also extends so that individuals are able to protest and rally in support or against a cause. Individuals feel very strongly about the protection of this civil liberty as it has played a significant role in past and current conflicts. For example, the Vietnam war was an instance where much of the public openly disagreed with the U.S’s involvement in the war. Freedom of speech protected these disputes and allowed individuals to have a voice, despite their opposition to government’s actions and involvement in the war. Infringement of this liberty in any way during times of war would be met with opposition because the public will defend their right to speak freely about the government’s actions during war. Likewise, the protection of privacy is another civil liberty that the public will defend if it is infringed upon. With the most recent war there have been many security measures taken to prevent terrorist attacks. Airport security and entrance is more extensive. The public generally is accepting of such measures because this is infringing on privacy in a public domain, such an airport. However, the Patriot Act, which restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. This Act invades privacy in various places and even at home. Although this act’s efforts are to create more security for everyone, others worry that infringement of privacy will also lead to unreasonable and search and seizure. Monitoring the actions of individuals should only happen when there is reason to suspect they are a threat. In conclusion, while authorities and government want to take measure to protect the public during times of war, there are certain areas in which the public would oppose. Infringing on freedom of speech, certain areas of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure would create public uproar. The government needs to realize that it is these very liberties that are the foundations of our freedom. Without them, we are no longer a democratic, free society.
When America is at war, it becomes a confusing time in this country. While our nation stands upon the foundation of freedom and liberty, these values are often pushed aside when the government fears a greater outside threat. Though our fear may sometimes blind us, it is important to always stay true to the belief in our rights that bind us and never allow ourselves to sacrifice them. When we permit the government to take away our freedoms as they did following 9/11, we are permitting them to take away our identity. Legislation, such as the Patriot Act passed in 2001, undermines the freedoms that we are fighting to protect. When we become paranoid enough to risk our rights, the terrorists are winning just as if they had taken down another building. Though some argue that national security is more important than one’s own privacy, but if we lose our right to privacy, we have already lost before we have even begun to fight. We must fight with honor and not give in to our fears. We must have the courage to do what we know is right. It is still important during times of war to keep a watchful eye on government power. It is very easy to submit our right over due to the many secrets the government keeps and the fear they instill, but it is our job as citizens to monitor the amount of control they possess. Our founding fathers constructed this nation so that the people may have control over the destiny of their country. Too often American citizens do not understand the power that is constitutionally given to us, and much of this is the fault of our own government. We must take our jobs as American citizens seriously and use our power to protect our ideals and ourselves. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Nobody can acquire honor by doing what is wrong”. As a nation, we understand that sacrificing our rights is wrong. We understand that honor is a value we hold dear. We must never let our fears get the best of us and permit our government to strip of us what makes us the United States of America. It is integral that Americans are informed and understand what we are allowing our government to do, whether it is bombing another country or tracking our use if he internet. These acts change our lives and the lives of people around the world and it is our responsibility to understand who, what where when, and why at all times. Though it may seem like a daunting responsibility, it is a small price to pay for our irreplaceable freedoms.
There is an ongoing debate regarding whether or not government should have the right to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens in times of war. In David N. Gibb’s article, “The CIA is Back on Campus”, he argues “against collaboration between universities and intelligence agencies”. Gibb appears to be saying that the CIA’s involvement is an unfair use of professional knowledge. In essence, the intent and purpose of the government’s interest in this sort of cooperation with academia is solely for their benefit. With that in mind, it seems as though a form of exploitation is taking place. For example, CIA agents had asked professionals in fields of psychology and other sciences to offer their expertise in experiments involving a “variety of drugs” and assessing “test subjects”. While some scholars may argue such an occurrence is auspicious, I disagree in part. In times of war, it is not always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteAdvocates of government infringement on civil liberties during times of war might argue that giving officials the power to intervene is the quickest and easiest solution to fighting conflict. Imagine if the United States left it up to independent communities to establish problem-solving strategies in response to warfare. Without a doubt, several factors come to mind that discredit this hypothetical approach. For example uncertainty would arise regarding delegation, efficiency, and access to adequate resources or contacts. Our nation would only agree to these deficient community remedies acquiescently because there seems to be a level of comfort associated with a more cogent agenda associated with a higher power. What these advocates fail to recognize, however, is that civil liberties were essentially created in order to protect citizens from state intrusion. For this reason, we must consider the other side of the argument as well.
By intervening with the freedom of our nation’s people, government is ultimately condoning abuse of official power. According to the United States Constitution, we are guaranteed specific inalienable rights. Why then should the government challenge our freedoms in a way that compromises what has been promised to us in times of war? One might respond countering this question by asking why shouldn’t the government be able to challenge our freedoms in a way that compromises are freedoms especially in times of war? Perhaps arguing one side of this debate is not the solution. It could be that the United States must find a common ground when it comes to exercising power in times of need and maintaining privileges, immunities, and political rights.
In conclusion, developing a medium that caters to both a need for imposition and fundamental rights is the answer. In times of war, the higher powers may need to infringe on such things as privacy in order to benefit the nation as a whole. It is important to recognize the bigger picture; the idea that the government exists to keep us safe, and make sure order is either maintained or restored. Although it is acceptable on occasion to confront its initiatives, we must also keep in mind the outcome of whatever the agenda may be in perspective of the greater good. At the same time, our independent preservation is also an important factor to always consider.
In times of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens for multiple reasons. One of the many duties of the government is to protect and serve the citizens that reside within the boundaries of the country. In order to ensure the safety of the people in the country, occasionally the government will be obligated to violate the liberties of its own people. If the government does not breach rights during times of war, the devastation of a preventable act of war could be catastrophic. I will argue that in certain conditions like war, the government should be permitted to flout upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the history of the United States, there are examples of occasions when the government intervened during a period of war for the sake of its people. In recent years, the Patriot Act was implemented under the administration of President Bush in 2001 after the attack on the world trade towers. This act has been argued to invade the freedoms and privacy of the United State citizens. The privacy act entitles the government to search telephone, email, medical and other records of any person in the United States. The motivation behind the Privacy Act was to protect the citizens of the United States from terrorist. President Bush had called for a war on terror and these circumstances created a need for the government to protect us by investigating our records to apprehend terrorists.
In the past, the United States has also used similar tactics to defend the citizens. In the course of World War II, the Japanese and Japanese-Americans were forced to relocate after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1942 to confinement camps along the west coast. This act has been castigated to be unconstitutional because the government seized the freedom of the Japanese descendents and put them in bellicose camps to segregate them from the community. President Roosevelt authorized the internment camps because of the collusion that there were Japanese spies living in the United States. Roosevelt acted on his decision to detain the Japanese in America because many perceived this would prevent the United States from further attacks.
In conclusion, desperate times call for desperate measures. In times of war, the government should be allowed to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. If the United States had never implemented the programs that violated civil liberties, there could have been more tragedy and more lives lost in these circumstances. The government is often imposing these regulations for the greater good of the people even though they may be an inconvenience to a certain demographic of the population.
Word Count: 446
ReplyDelete@ Mark
ReplyDeleteYou do a great job of tying together your examples with your thesis. However, I partly agree with your perspective. I question if a government is tied down to a specific regulation, aren't they, in a way, defeating themselves? We call parts of the Constitution Amendments; doctrines of change. Perhaps this reveals our nations imperfections but, at the same time, shows our strengths because we remain flexible. I believe for complete effectiveness a balance between common sense and regulation is needed.
Throughout history times of war have created much adversity. There remains an everlasting dispute that evokes the question whether or not it is permissible for the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Some may argue that by infringing on our civil liberties, the government loses a sense of its defined independency suggested in the Constitution. However, if a government is completely tied down to specific regulations or laws, despite the circumstances, it becomes more vulnerable; the government may end up defeating themselves. In this essay, I will argue that there must be an axiom of balance between common sense and regulation, within any government, that protects the civil liberties of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe United States government attempted to unite common sense with regulation when the Patriot Act was passed in 2001. In an attempt to protect against further terrorist attacks, The Patriot Act was passed to allow less-restrictive investigative measures in areas of communication, finance, medical and personal records, etc. Some castigate the Patriot Act for abusing the authority of United States government by completely disregarding individual privacy. However, at the same time, the Act is an example of the flexibility needed to protect an unaware nation in times of crisis. After the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, it was clearly evident that new regulations needed to be implemented into our government to increase its effectiveness. If our nation failed to do something, we would remain vulnerable in the same ways that got us hurt before. Transforming a once ambiguous policy into a structured law, The Patriot Act represents the amalgamation of common sense with regulation because, as a nation, we quickly realized the need for change.
The ability to quickly respond and realize a need for change has become a major strength of the United States government. Without understanding the importance of flexibility, one could argue that a government should only handle regulative matters and perhaps this reveals our nations imperfections. On the other hand, it shows strength because we remain flexible; regulations should be relative towards any situation in order to become responsive and protect the greater good of the nation. Often times, real case scenarios may call for different measures. For example, in the CIA attempts to blend their investigative knowledge with the world of academia in order to better protect the nation. The Agency uses trained professionals in many science related fields to experiment and join professional knowledge with regulation. We must realize the significance of knowledge and common sense when new laws are made. A policy may become antiquated because of an increasing amount of knowledge. If this is degraded, we would essentially be leaving our nation open to a shot below the belt. The CIA attempts to prevent this by reinforcing their investigative policies with a common knowledge that protects the citizens.
Finally, it is evident that the government has an extreme regulative power but, without incorporating common sense or professional knowledge, the government is nearly useless and becomes more vulnerable. With a constantly changing society in mind, the government should remain adaptive to real circumstances, rather than being tied down to a preexisting policy. The question is no longer whether or not it is permissible for the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens, but rather, how it will continue to blend policy with logic to better protect the greater good of the nation.
Word Count: 570
David Gibbs’ “The CIA is Back on Campus” raises valid points about government control in academia. Speaking specifically of the CIA, Gibbs decries the stranglehold held by “the Agency” to release information of its furtive actions. However, even given the covert and, considering those who think like Mr. Gibbs, disingenuous nature of the CIA, is it permissible to stymie the pursuit of information and an American citizen’s right to spread it? Freedom of the press and the rights of free speech, including the free flow of information and knowledge, are some of the most important rights and civil liberties in America.
ReplyDeleteTaking a step further, history has shown that in times of war the amalgamation of fear and anger in the populous and unbridled government power can lead to less than desirable outcomes. Most notably, the September attacks of 2001 morphed a proud country into one fearful of a previously “unknown” enemy, angered by their actions and willing to give up anything if it meant government protection. The ignorance of a nation gave the Bush Administration the power to all but flagrantly spy on its own citizens, infringing on their rights. The same happened under President Roosevelt and his creation of Japanese internment camps, under Adolf Hitler who removed any and all noticeable contributions to society made by those of Jewish decent, just as Joseph Stalin did in Russia. Just looking at these four figures, governmental actions that infringed upon the civil liberties of its people – suppressing information, promoting misconceptions of a people and the like – occurred during times of war and can be said to have done irreparable damage, shaping the world, though not for the better.
Having looked at the repercussions of governments infringing on civil liberties, should it ever be permissible? America is country built on the idea of a government whose sole job is to serve and protect its people – who are the ones that give the government its power. At the same time, the Amendments to the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, are what provide the civil liberties to citizens. The documents that govern this country and what is permissible government behavior are already set in place. Any increase in power for the government to do as it pleases is only permissible if and only if the people say so. Unfortunately this power often is given in times of war, when the wrong motives, such as fear and pride, command the course of action, and when sensible, thought out, calculated action is not likely to have been made and when encroachments on civil liberties are even more serious.
In sum, it is questionable if government should ever have the ability to infringe upon the civil liberties of its people, let alone in times of war. If there is one thing that can be learned by the wars America is currently fighting, and the aforementioned examples, action guided by fear and hubris can lead to regrettable situations, triggering wars that often infringe on its people.
Word Count: 500
ReplyDelete@Patricia
ReplyDeleteI like that you asked questions of what the cost of either action would be. This shifts the debate from who's wrong and who's right, over to what is the best course of action, and what elements of either side are valid for leading to much more desirable results. However, giving the government the ability to do as it wished in times of war is often the worst case scenario. For instance, under the implementation of the Patriot Act even the most private of things about your life, the government is now privy to. And if we begin to sacrifice some rights and liberties, where is it that a line can be drawn? Does the willingness of some mean that we all have to relent? Do possible benefits outweigh definite costs? And what makes some civil liberties less important than others?
Throughout our society, the argument of the modernity of civil liberties pervades. What has oft been considered a polarized debate has become one of multiple facets. Within American society, three stances are held: the left argues that civil liberties may be infringed upon if it benefits the greater social good, the right argues that a different set of liberties may be thrown to the side only if it protects the safety of the country, and a third sub-set of the population raise their collective arms in protest of any violation of civil liberties. Even though the former two arguments propose their opinions to take into consideration the “greater good” of society, their path is dangerous and is detrimental to the ideals conceived by our Founding Fathers. If we continue to relinquish the civil liberties which our ancestors fought so diligently to obtain, we will surely live to regret our actions and will leave a lesser future for our descendents.
ReplyDeleteIn his article entitled, “The CIA is Back on Campus,” David Gibbs notes the integration of academia and certain agencies within the government—namely the CIA. He, furthermore, opines that the CIA crosses a proverbial line of ethics by doing so. Although this occurrence is, indeed, a cause of alarm for society, the events throughout the past decade have shown that the government, as a whole, is in the business of stripping away the collective civil liberties of its citizens.
Signed into law on October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act serves as the basis for “dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies’ ability to search telephone, email communications, medical, financial, and other records.” The law also expanded “the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism.” By broadening law enforcement powers and powers of the executive branch, our government successfully enacted away many of our collective privacy rights. Although a certain sub-set of our population argue that the law was necessary to ensure our safety, the well documented use of fear in order to reduce civil liberties normally held by citizens and the dismissal of its importance by the American public will, indeed, lead to future regrets.
A further concern is the increasing and, some would say, overreaching power of the executive branch throughout the past decade. The “emergency bailout” of the auto-industry, for example, enacted via executive order by former president George W. Bush has no basis within the constitution. His actions throughout his presidency represent a gross overreach of executive powers not seen since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, with Executive Order 9066, effectively interned 120,000 Japanese-Americans, Germans, and Italians. In total, President Roosevelt’s misinterpretation of the use of Executive Orders numbered in 3,435 orders (more than one order every two days). The Founders meant the Legislative Branch to be the most powerful of the three within our Federal Government due to their proximity to the American people. Allowing the balance of power to shift to the Executive Branch, we only allow our civil liberties to be blind-sided in times of hardship and fear.
In closing, the solution to combating the overreaching arm of the Federal Government lies on we, as citizens, and our ability to hold accountable those who we elect. Through support of bills such as HR 1207 (The Federal Reserve Transparency Act) and HR 3765 (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2009 or REINS), we can modify the collective view that the government is “untouchable” and reform the government to one of which the Founders intended: one accountable to its citizens. By doing so, we can promise opportunities and freedom for future generations.
Word Count: 603
@ James
ReplyDeleteYou raise valid points regarding the timing of "power-grabs" by our government. Should drastic changes be made in times of deress )particularly when those laws involve our civil liberties)? I, for one, find it interesting that the collective opinion switches from one pole to the other, depending on which party is in office (for the most part).
@ Patricia
ReplyDeleteYou did a good job using the prompt to shape your paper. I think that your essay flowed and was precise. However, I think that you could work on using specific examples in order to strengthen you argument.
War is a common feature of human existence. During times of war, it is not uncommon for governments to violate civil rights in order to attain victory. Some argue however that such violations are not always permissible. Such flawed rationale would lead to chaos during wartime however. Instead one can argue that governmental violations of civil liberties are always permissible during times of war because of the need to isolate enemies and establish unity.
ReplyDeleteWartime is a period of chaos by nature as a nation faces enemies inside and outside its borders. Accordingly, the period requires strong governmental actions in identifying and isolating enemies. One might then argue that this creates a slippery slope in which the government has the ability to turn into a dictatorship, as David Gibbs castigates in part in his article “The CIA is Back on Campus.“ However, during war a country must do anything and everything to ensure its survival because the only other option is defeat. An example of this can be seen in the American Civil War. Although President Lincoln is revered today by many as a hero, he blatantly violated the civil rights of American citizens by suspending the cannon of habeus corpus during wartime in order to maintain stability and isolate enemies within the country. His efforts were successful to some extent, although possibly morally unjust.
Although potentially morally questionable, governments must also be permitted to violate civil liberties in order to establish unity. Opponents of this argument might claim that a potentially oppressive government can only breed disunity as dissidents emerge. But if a government works properly to encourage unity and limit opposition, than dissidents should remain few. During wartime, it is necessary to have a country unified and dedicated to the war effort. This fact can be seen in the success of the United States during WWII when the majority of the country was dedicated to the war effort versus the relative failure of the United States during the Vietnam War as much of the country protested the violence. Unity also plays a role as the government requires the cooperation of academics in order to successfully win a war. In his article, Gibbs condemns this relationship. However, he fails to realize that the relationship is symbiotic, helping both parties to grow. Academics receive large amounts of funding in exchange for their cooperation with the government. For example, in the field of political science, the relationship has provided for more successful government actions not only limited to war as well as more jobs and ability to research for political science academics.
The world of war is not by any means an easy one. War is not a place for morals or complete adherence to Civil Rights, as can be seen throughout history. Instead, winning a war requires a government able to violate civil liberties due to the necessity to isolate enemies and establish unity during wartime in order to ensure the nation‘s future.
Word count: 493
@ Patricia:
ReplyDeleteI liked some of the questions you raised in your essay especially when you suggest a balance between governmental power and civil liberties. But you say that governments should be able to intervene during times of trouble, and someone arguing for greater governmental power would say that that is exactly what they are suggesting. That being said, how would you suggest that such a balance be created? (so that either extreme couldn't suggest that you are arguing their point).
@ Mark
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job of drawing examples for times when the government has had to violate civil liberties during war time which gives support to your thesis. However, you don't really explain why that is better for the country. Maybe explaining the impact those actions had and how they benefited the war effort would do the job.
In times of war, many feel the government should be allowed to do anything within its power to ensure victory. However, this means the government will be allowed to violate inherent rights to citizens of the state. Once one rate is violated, the government may be comfortable with violating more and more rights until the quality of life is severly restricted. Thus, during times of war, the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteSupporters of unlimited government power argue that infringing upon certain civil liberties will not harm the country or its citizens. The problem with this statement, however, is that if there is precedent for violating civil liberties during times of war, the government may act without any limitation to what rights it can violate. In doing so, many people may actually be harmed in the process. Such was the case during WWII when the government was profiling Japenese citizens, and met little resistance. Because the government was not challenged, it was easy for it to eventually place many Japense citizens into internment camps. To wrongfully imprison some one is a major violation of their civil liberties.
Another argument is the government has given citizens their liberties and it has the right to handle the liberties as it sees fit. It essence, the people serve the government. However, this line of thinking is the exact opposite of the basis by which this country was found. The original purpose of the government was to be a vessel to run this country at the disposal of its citizens. Thus, the government is actually suppose to be serving the people; and if the majority of the country feels asw though under no circumstance should their civil liberties be violated, then it is the government's responsibility to make sure that happens.
Many believe that infringing upon civil liberties will allow the country to be more effective in ensuring victory. However, this view is narrow minded. All the resources invested in violating civil liberties could be devoted to alternative means during war time. As a result, those sectors will be boosted, and possibly to the point where the become more effective than methods involving infringment of civil liberties ever could be. Before technology made violating privacy more attainable, the country had been doing well enough during times of war.
As a citizen of the United States, one is guaranteed all their civil liberties and a violation of any one of the is a federal offense. Regardless of the situation, the government, as stated in its own Constitution, has no right ignore these liberties. Which is way during war time, the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
@James:
ReplyDeleteI like how you used historical examples like FDR and the Nazis to prove your point. Someone could argue however that FDR and other historical examples of governments infringing on civil liberties DID win, possibly because of their "abuse" of power.
Civil liberties include, among other rights, the right of individuals to choose and practice their own religion, the right to own property, the right to privacy and the right to have fair trials. These are basic rights that no human being should ever have to give up. I disagree with the prompt. It is never permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that certain rights and luxuries should be given up by citizens during times of war. For example there might be extra security protocols when traveling in, out and around a country at war. During periods of war it is also very likely that the government will set up state-of-emergencies and curfews. Certain geographical areas of a country may even be blocked off by the government and become inaccessible to pedestrians. These are all regular consequences of a war especially if the war is being fought on home soil. Citizens of no state can expect to live life in a completely unchanged manner during those times.
Although citizens should be expected to give up some of their rights during a war, it is not necessary for those citizens to have to give up their basic civil rights. A national curfew during times of war is important because it keeps pedestrians home and away from unnecessary risks, but infringing on civil right neither aids the government or citizens of a nation. For example, the freedom to practice any religion or the right to privacy has nothing to do with war. There is no cogent excuse for the government to infringe on civil liberties.
Civil liberty represents the core values of human society and it is the pride of democracies. Even if a government can somehow gain some sort of military advantage by infringing on it, civil rights should always be protected. It should remain free of collusion. Our civil liberties are the rights which allow us to live life as respectful humans. Arguably, the reason we have wars in the first place is to protect the civil liberties of citizens. In fact, the purpose current war against terrorism is to protect the freedom of citizens. Therefore, there is no point at all in having wars if we need to compromise our core values to be successful. There is no purpose of a war of we compromise the very thing we are often fighting for; the right to be free- civil rights.
In conclusion, war is no excuse for a government to infringe on the civil rights of its citizen. Besides the fact that civil rights are no buttress for the government during war, they represent the fundamental values of human society and should not be belied.
454 words
@ Michael,
ReplyDeleteMike, I like how you stood up against the prompt. I also like how you used historical examples to make your point and how you emphasized that winning a war is number one priority.
On December 15, 1791, the United States Bill of Rights was ratified. This document was created to protect our civil liberties such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right of due process. However, there have been times when these civil liberties have been ignored, especially during times of war. If the government continues to undermine the rights granted to us over 200 years ago, they risk a rebellion by the people of this country. Even though war is a tragic event that happens and the government wants to protect the people, it is not always permissible to infringe upon the civil liberties of the citizens. The two time periods of war that will be discussed in this paper are World War II and The War on Terror.
ReplyDeleteDuring World War II, the attack at Pearl Harbor brought hysteria to the United States. As a result, 110,000 Japanese-Americans were relocated to internment camps for fear that their loyalty to the Emperor of Japan would cause greater troubles for the rest of the American people. At this time, there was much animosity towards the Japanese because of their prosperity in this country. Not only were the Japanese racially profiled but they were illegally imprisoned, which is expressed in the 14th and 6th amendments respectively. Our government was fully aware of infringing on the rights of citizens. Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, sought permission to conduct search and seizure operations against the Japanese and his request was denied by the Department of Justice, on the grounds of no probable cause. However, Franklin Delano Roosevelt enacted Executive Order 9066, which would give DeWitt the chance to do what he had requested earlier. Even though this was a time of war and there were a few Japanese-Americans who did commit acts against this country, it does not justify the actions of our government. In the end, this incident caused more harm than good. Infringement on the rights of citizens is not something that took place only during World War II but also now as our country is engaged in the War on terror.
In March 2003, our country invaded Iraq as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. With this war came the Patriot Act, which gave government agencies more power to monitor telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. This Act deters the government from the ultimate goal of catching the terrorists. Most Americans are law abiding people who are here to live and not cause harm. By the government being so concerned with monitoring everyone they may miss the few individuals that they are looking for. What the government needs to do is be more concerned about how they are running their agencies like the CIA who have a faulty past. In the article by David Gibbs, he mentions the abusive human rights history of the CIA and how they conducted harmful research on people. Doing harmful things to the citizens of this country not only violates civil liberties but also challenges the ethics of the organization. The CIA also worked closely with Bin Laden in the late 70’s. This is disturbing because this would mean that the government is creating the problems that cause terrorist attacks and then expecting the American people to give up their liberties. The citizens should not have to suffer without their civil liberties because the government made the conscious effort to involve themselves with individuals who later cause destruction on our country.
In conclusion, it is not always permissible for the government to infringe on the civil liberties. There are times when these infringements prove to cause more harm than good. Detaining 110,000 Japanese-Americans was wrong and the government tried to fix that by giving reparations. Now with the Patriot Act, there have still been random acts of terror on this country. It is evident that infringing on civil rights during war time is not having the desired effect the government was looking to achieve.
Word Count: 670
Wartime brings about chaos and calls for quick action and thinking. This consist of finding the best resolution in order to solve the problem. As well as defending oneself with as minimal loss as possible. Some believe that during times of war there are no guaranteed protections of citizens, and civil liberties are free to be violated by the government. However, the constitution gives individual rights and does not offer exception under any circumstances. If we begin to make exceptions to when and where the law can be used citizens will become at risk for government violating laws in and out of wartime. To rectify this situation I will argue that infringing on civil liberties at times of war will result in a more lax commitment to upholding civil liberties outside of war.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident that maintaining citizen’s civil liberties is not always possible during times of war. For example, if someone is thought to be harboring a terrorist the right to privacy will not be held in order to protect other citizens. But where do we draw the line in violating rights? When war is occurring the only legitimate need to infringe on citizen’s rights is if other lives are at risk. The government cannot sit back and allow others to be placed in harm’s way. It is the job of law enforcement and armed forced to protect them. But overall the need to violate individual civil liberties is minimal.
If we allow the government to infringe on our liberties we give them permission to overuse their power. We must be chary of this because it could lead to mistrust and or the loss of an organized government. As citizens we hold expectations of our government to not only protect us during times of war but make sure that our rights are not violated. In addition, one exemption leads to more exemptions. Looking back to the result of the September 11, 2001 attacks the right to privacy was immensely disregarded. This lead to the implementation of the Patriot Act, further reducing the right to privacy. Laws are in place to maintain order. Allowing laws to knowing be violated will create chaos especially during times of war.
In closing, the government must be careful not to overexert its power but to buttress those who they are serving: the citizens. Our administrations must commiserate with us and make us feel as if we are a number one priority during both times of war and during times of solitude. Americans do not want the government to become lax in advocating rights given to us by the constitution. As a result we must always acknowledge civil liberties.
word count 445
@ Deon
ReplyDeleteI was slightly confused at which side you were taking in the beginning. In the second paragraph you mention that certain rights do need to be given up during war but then proceed discussing how no rights should not be given up in the remainder of the essay. You make a very good point that the war we are fighting now is to protect the rights of citizens so it would be hypocritical to violate civil liberty laws.
at Michael Dickinson:
ReplyDeleteI like the way you back up your argument by providing examples. This examples make your thesis stronger. In addition I like how you use the article by Gibbs. At the end I think that by picking a side and proving that you have a point you have a really good essay.
@ Patrica
ReplyDeleteI feel as though you had a solid arguement and that you made strong points for both the positive and the negative aspects of the prompt. I think to make your essay even stronger, outside examples would have been good to use. Overall your essay was well written.
@ Michael,
ReplyDeleteThe way you supported your argument with examples of the several wars that the USA has been involved, tied and explain your point of view in this issue. Also, it seems that you have a clear view way why the government sometimes has to violate human civil liberties when it comes time to defend the country. Also, I like how everything in your essay when back to your thesis of unity as a way to justify the need to violate certain civil liberties to bring peace and unity to the country.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe government acts as a protector of their citizens’ rights and liberties, although when war hits the country, the government seems to have the right to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens in order to control and find the way out of the situation. But if the government continues with this attitude, the citizens might see their participation as a canon rather than an act of patriotism, where they get to do it because they want to. Besides, this can create difficult situations, where citizens have to leave their opportunities to study or held back on reaching their goals in order to support their country. This should be the citizens’ decision and not the government’s. I do not agree that the government should always infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens in times of war.
ReplyDeleteHowever, some believe that it is the citizens’ obligation to help their country as a favor for all the rights this country has provided them with. In the other hand, some will disagree with this, since they believe that it should be an act of patriotism rather than an obligation. But if the government violates their liberties they might see this as a negative situation because they don’t have the right to decide whether or not they want to participate. There has been situation in history, when suddenly the government needs help in the army and it has forced teenagers to participate in the army by enlisting them. At the end, many deaths result from this because the teenagers were callow and were not prepared to confront the war at that level. Also, this people, which liberties are broken, might have to be in situations where they have to participate in studies or tests where other rights are been violated, in order to find a solution to a problem faced during war.
Moreover, this situation might take away the opportunities presented to the people since, instead in pursuing their goals and achieving them, they have to buttress their country and hold back their careers. Also, this might mean that if they participate helping their country they might have to study or prepared for something that they don’t like or would not have chosen if they have had a choice. Then, if they have the opportunity to go back and pick up where they left of, they might feel alienated because they don’t fit with the others surrounding them. The reason for this might be because they have been away from social life that they might be aghast with the idea of confronting the world after their experience on the war. The participation to support the country and the violation of civil liberties sometimes can be traumatizing for the participants of war. This is the reason why it is not necessary for the government to be always permissible when difficult times come, because it can create a society full of frustrations because of the things they have to go through to help the country.
In conclusion, sudden war and interventions from the government might lead them to violate the civil liberties of the citizens; therefore, this strategy might not be the best solution. This is why the government should now when and when not use these measures of authority over its citizens. In order to stop situations from getting worse or interfering with someone else’s goals, the participation should be voluntary instead of forcing them to participate even if they wanted to stay neutral in times of war.
Word Count: 585
In times of war it is permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Even thought some citizens will feel repulsion upon their government’s actions in the long run these actions could prevent farther impairment. If the government respects the civil liberties of its citizens to the fullest especially by providing classified information, the enemy will be prepare in case of any confrontation between both parties. I will argue how the abdication of civil rights benefits the nation.
ReplyDeleteThe government has permission to infringe upon civil liberties because the protection of its citizens is more important than their civil liberties. For example if the government needs to decide between sharing confidential information about an operation to attack a communism leader and not sharing it. It will be safer to hide that information than sharing it because by sharing information there are several ways in which the communist leader can find out about the investigation and take actions against the government involved. By hiding information about certain investigations, the government is securing its citizens by preparing attacks in case of an invasion or attack from another government, and those pans will be confidential preventing any contra attack.
We as citizens should respect the government actions since we have decided to follow their rules once we integrate ourselves into the system and even if we don’t want to follow the system we are being force to do so, otherwise we will be punished. We want to make sure that our government follows the rules too, but sometime that is just impossible because in some cases following respecting all laws and/or liberties could situate the nation at risk. That is why sometimes we have to abdicate certain liberties in the name of our nation. Sometimes we might not agree to whatever the government is doing but even though we might not like it and it might sound terrible it will facilitate the development of our nation. The government was design to protect its people and even though citizens have certain liberties the government has to decide what is more important for its citizens and in some cases these liberties may be infringe.
In every nation and for all governments the protection of their citizens is their priority, since their citizens are the main component of both the government and the nation. We as citizens have the right to know the actions of our government but if keeping certain actions will benefit our nation, we should acquiesce to the abdication of those liberties.
@ Kyle
ReplyDeleteYou defended your paint fairly and supported it with great examples. It was easy to follow due to its structure. I agree to your idea of having flexible regulation in the government, you point out how there are many thing that can go wrong if we restrict the government to a specific system and I see how having flexible regulations can be beneficial to our nation.
In Palko v. Connecticut, Justice Cardozo wrote that some rights ‘rank as fundamental in our concept of ordered liberty.’ Since Palko, the scope of fundamental rights has more broadly been applied to privacy, found to exist as a right in the “penumbras” of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Where some have argued that civil liberties are secondary to national security and the common defense, others have held individual liberties are fundamental and define our national character. Without government restraint, broad exercise of state power can restrict individual privacy and individual rights, and impose majority viewpoints on minorities. Maintaining the rights guaranteed by the Constitution during wartime creates a framework for acceptable incursion into privacy and fundamental freedoms and does not create a conflict with the state’s interest in security.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over whether or not to permit wiretapping on American citizens illuminates the discussion over wartime civil liberties expectations. It has been claimed that the wiretapping is a necessity because of the government’s interest in obtaining needed information about potential terrorist targets and organizations. Privacy advocates however, note that indiscriminate, warrantless tapping of phone conversations represent a broad overreach of state powers into individual freedoms. Since 1968, the Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy as an implicit right found in the shadows of several Amendments within the U.S. Constitution. The framers understood the need for the state to protect its citizens, but they also enumerated various freedoms that could not be abridged. The right to carry a private phone conversation is among these rights, and if the government has a legitimate reason to tap a phone record, all they need to obtain is a warrant from a magistrate judge. Without a court order to conduct an investigation, the tapping of phones incurs into privacy rights without demonstrating reason. Inevitably, the impermissible, broad exercise of state power is outside the framework established in the Constitution.
Other freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights also protect citizens from the imposition of majority-rule. In West Virginia v. Barnett, Justice Jackson wrote: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities.” In striking down a West Virginia law forcing public school students to recite the pledge of allegiance during World War II, Jackson found that minority opinions in opposition of war can be crushed by state mandates that individuals recite the pledge. Although wartime is a sensitive time that may demand national unity for the state to conduct war, squashing minority opinions infringes on fundamental rights. It is also possible that minority opinions expressed in the free marketplace of ideas can appeal to the majority, and directly influence change in policy or conduct of war.
Broad exercise of state power in war, without a framework that protects certain rights, risks incurring on fundamental freedoms. The Constitution, and the process for obtaining warrants to violate an individual’s privacy in the conduct of investigations, establishes the boundaries and limits of state authority. States have every right to protect their citizens, but citizens have every right to protect themselves from unlawful state interference. Fortunately, those rights of individuals to protect themselves from imposition by the state are established in a living framework where the state needs to prove that there is a reason that state interests supersede individual liberties. Those procedures are established in the Bill of Rights.
I cut out the section about the CIA because Blogger said "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters" (it wasn't above 4,096 characters). Word Count: 650
@Josefina: I liked your discussion of the draft, but I think you could have expanded on the idea of what the draft means in terms of the state imposing a viewpoint on people (the viewpoint being, you have to fight this war).
ReplyDelete@Mark: well I disagree with your essay's position, but I think it was cogent overall (YOU BETTER GET THAT WORD RIGHT ON THE GRE QUIZ). However, I don't think the Japanese internment example really made your point.
For centuries there has been great debate about whether or not it is acceptable to suspend civil liberties during times of war or domestic threat. Some people say that the suspension of civil liberties is necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. However, there is fault in following this line of thought which can lead to a general complacency about being relieved of rights even in times that are not considered “wartime” or “threatening”. If it is acceptable to suspend our rights some of the times, this can escalate beyond its initial intention. In this essay I will argue that it is never permissible for the government to infringe upon its citizens’ civil liberties. This has been proved through various events such as President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus rights during the Civil War and the Second Red Scare events led by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights; those who were taken as military or political prisoner were not required to know for what reason they were in prison or for how long. Many historians have argued that President Lincoln can be forgiven of this misstep because he was dealing with a country divided, open warfare, and because he had promised to re-instate habeas corpus rights as soon as the war was over. However, Lincoln disobeyed the law, which allows Congress the right to suspend these rights, not the President. This essentially raised the possibility of the President who has overriding authority to both branches of government. In the Merryman case, John Merryman was a Confederate sympathizer who was accused of treason. His judge issued a habeas corpus write because there was little if any evidence that he was committing the acts they charged him with. President Lincoln ignored this order which outraged the judge. Ultimately, Merryman was never even tried in the military court system or at all. This shows a waste of resources, a lack of sufficient evidence, and a questionable action on behalf of those in power. Actions such as President Lincoln’s have paved the way for other suspensions of liberties such as Japanese internment camps during World War II and for Guantanamo Bay arrests that are still being carried out.
After World War II, the United States was experiencing a serious fear of communism including it being spread by Russian sympathizers. McCarthyism, as the events would later come to be known, were the unsubstantiated accusations made by those in the government against other government officials and sometimes civilians who were thought to be fraternizing with the Russians or even Chinese Communists. Although some people may argue that McCarthyism was acceptable because the U.S. had found spies in the government before, such as the case with the Rosenbergs who were passing along classified information in regards to atomic bombs and other weaponry to the Russians. However these incidents, no matter how large, could never make such laws such as the Smith Act; knowingly or willfully teaching the overthrow of the government, the Communist Control Act; which outlawed all Communist activities and gave them no rights, and the Taft-Hartley Act; which denied trade unions NLRB protection unless they signed that they had never been Communists, acceptable. Because of these acts numerous government officials, reporters, television personalities, and more lost their careers. The negative effects of these actions is clear; an anti-immigration sentiment, an understanding that one individual can gain massive power in government when taking advantage of widespread paranoia, and the endorsement by the U.S. government of not allowing freedom of speech or opinions if it was contrary to the national security agenda.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the damage of these actions is far greater than the benefits of suspending civil liberties.
From both Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus in the 19th century and the numerous amounts of legislation passed after World War II to counter Communist “threats” to the States, it is apparent the overwhelmingly negative outcomes of these measures. When, even for a short period, civil liberties are ignored and cast aside, it paves the way for future decisions that endanger the rights of citizens and the democratic way of life. Others may argue that there are certainly times where these rights may be breached, however history has shown the latter to be true; that it is far more effective to preserve them in their entirety to maintain public morale and find legal, democratic ways of handling the pressures and problems of war and times of threat to our nation. We are at a critical moment in our nation’s history when trying to balance national security with civil liberties, but there is no room for cutting corners. Liberties must remain fully intact and so must the efforts to keep our nation safe and prosperous. Now, not only war is a time for questioning our rights, but also terrorism presents itself as a new kind of threat that some say requires infringement of rights. However we must continue to look for new ways to deal with our security issues without creating new civil liberty issues at home.
@SC^2
ReplyDeleteI do not understand how the argument that the government keeping information private is supporting the idea of infringement upon civil liberties. Are you implying that withholding information is an infringement? I also feel as though your essay would have been better with more concrete examples such as the Patriot Act, or something that would have showcased the government taking away liberties for the "greater good". Also, I think you should try to restate the thesis more in your conclusion and summarize your essay again. I like how you discussed the social contract theory - that citizens give up sovereignty to a government. Good thinking!
It is argued that in times of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. In many instances, at first glance, this may seem to be the appropriate measures to ensure protection and security. However it is important to consider the long-term effects on civil liberties, and what will result if the people concede to constant exceptions. If the government successfully realizes and executes a plan that infringes on the public’s rights and liberties, we run the risk that these infringements and exceptions will occur more often and for longer periods. To rectify our thinking we must first weigh other options and then fully understand the long-term risks of the temporal acquiescence to civil rights infringements. In doing so, the key component of this issue is the government’s ability to monitor and control civil liberties. Once the government has gained that control over creating exceptions to the case and deciding when and how they will implement their plans, we will see an ultimate increase and broader spectrum dealing with what infringements will be tolerated and how much our liberties will be compromised.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the history of our government there have been many times when we have turned a blind eye to corrupt practices, and have silently agreed to compromise our rights. It has only been when we have given up all control over our civil liberties that the passage of certain laws and the engagement in certain actions that have a lasting effect on our rights have been seen through. Due to the fear that had been instilled into the American people by the government post September 11, the passage of the US Patriot Act has allowed for reduced restrictions on the presence and abilities of law enforcement agencies. This act has allowed for much greater access to personal information, as well as has had a huge impact on immigrants and persons from the Middle East. Since the passage of the act, anyone of Middle Eastern descent, even if they are American citizens, are interrogated and profiled as potential terrorists. This type of racial profiling severely treads on the rights of these individuals, also allowing for a greater police presence. Interestingly so, since the passage of the Patriot Act we have seen greater movement for the passage of more legislation that facilitates under the guise of fear and protection. Most recently this is illustrated in the case of the Arizona SB1070 law, which also allows for greater policing involvement and is followed through via racial profiling. It is important to note that the Patriot Act was passed after the war on terrorism was declared, and was a direct response to the Middle Eastern terrorist organization that purportedly planned and followed through on the 9/11 attack. However, the Arizona Immigration Act has no connection to the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an example of how the government gained control and ultimately used their exception ability to implement more legislation that compromises civil liberties.
In conclusion, it is important to look at the long term effects of allowing more government control. We have since allowed for greater policing and have conceding to racially profiling persons of Middle Eastern descent and more recently any person that looks Mexican. If we continue to allow for these exceptions because of the fear our government is instilling, then it is possible that in the near future our definition of civil liberties will be completely limited and modified, because we will no longer have the rights we once had.
word count : 593
In times of war, it is important for the government to utilize all available resources. America, unlike other countries, allows for a high level of individual freedom. Many U.S. citizens are given the opportunity to make their own academic choices and decide whether they want to serve in the military. In respect to wars and other bellicose situations, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Although this infringement is not ideal for the citizen involved, it is a necessary step in protecting the general welfare of the people. While David Gibbs may argue that CIA covert practices “are contrary to and deeply corrosive of some of the most basic standards of academic integrity,” it is important to understand why the CIA requires secrecy. This secrecy has allowed to CIA to engage in advance specified policy objectives without jeopardizing their identity. The CIA, as a growing force on academic campuses, offers a wide range of opportunities to the researchers involved while protecting the security the participants involved as well as the security of the nation.
ReplyDeleteOver the course of several decades, the CIA’s has provided students with research and financial opportunities. Because of the CIA’s interaction with academy, better and safer research practices have been developed. MKULTRA is among one of the many projects that demonstrate inhumane treatment of test subjects. Although full details of the project are not known, this research was carried out in hospitals and universities across the United States in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result of these inhumane projects carried, many academic researchers have to undergo full scale research approval. At the University of Delaware, graduate students and other researchers are required to seek approval through services like the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before they can legally engage in human or animal testing.
As a tradeoff for contributing to CIA-related research, Gibbs mentions that “the CIA has created a special scholarship program, for graduate students able and willing to obtain security clearances.” In terms of infringing on the civil liberties of citizens, yes, the student may be held accountable for maintaining government confidentiality. However, limitations on civil liberties like freedom of speech are willingly agreed upon by the student in return for being a CIA scholarship recipient. These practices are very similar to a clinical Registered Dietitian or other hospital employees, who operate under the Privacy Rule of the Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This act regulates confidentiality of patient information and restricts the release of patient information to third parties including family members. Like student researchers, a Registered Dietitian cannot release private information unless a Federal warrant has been issued. The CIA’s interaction with colleges and universities limits the civil liberties of involved researchers or other members in order to keep their operation confidential. Academic integrity must be sacrificed to avoid information “leaks”. While the government did take away certain liberties, these members chose to be a part of covert research and must therefore adhere to the CIA’s guidelines.
In a covert project, the only way to gather internal information from the outside is by “leaking” information. Gibbs argues that “another problem with the Agency is its extreme secretiveness and lack of public accountability… [which] extends to the CIA’s involvement with the academy”. Gibbs also emphasizes how difficult it is for faculty members and other researchers to obtain classified information. Consider how detrimental it would be if political science started including covert operation in their data sets to eliminate selection bias. Yes, internal criticism may be addressed. But the “leaked” information need to support political science could be specifically detrimental to our wellbeing if the information is placed in the hands of the enemy. Therefore, it is necessary for the government to infringe the civil liberties of those citizens involved in covert projects.
ReplyDeleteThe CIA’s collaboration with academics is to ultimately protect national security. Although the actions of the CIA are often criticized, the benefits of CIA and academic collaboration outweigh its dangers. The CIA is utilizing academics to combat terroristic attacks and other operations. In return for confidentiality, the researcher, especially graduate students are reaping the benefits of the CIA’s scholarships and potential job opportunities.
Word Count: 711
@Jazzy
Interesting viewpoint. I particularly enjoyed your responses about the government’s overuse of their power, civil liberty infringement and its relation to the Patriot Act. It was evident after the September 11th attack that the government needs to know where to draw the line between national security and infringement as well as knowing the minimal privacy invasion is attainable.
We are all familiar with the philosophical quote “the ends justify the means,” which is used to qualify using unusual methods to achieve one’s goals. There have been numerous occasions in our nation’s history when the government employed this method of thinking to substantiate the methods they used to get out of a difficult situation. When governments are caught in convoluted, often time-sensitive bellicose situations, it is easy for many to justify the actions of the government when infringing on the civil liberties of its citizens. If allowed to exercise total freedom without fear of repercussion the government may endanger the lives of its citizens. The debate about how much government interference on civil liberties is reasonable has cogent arguments on both ends of the spectrum. Today I will show that the government should not interfere on the civil liberties of its citizens; however, due to time constraints and societal pressures it [the government] often does.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to imprison a number of southern seceders without due process. He did this because he felt it was the only way to save the union during a time of great stress and turmoil. While he ultimately accomplished his goal of preserving this fragile new country, he did so at the expense of being condemned for denying the liberties of the country’s citizens. Why was this route chosen by the nineteenth century US president? Perhaps because he knew that going through a more conventional route would have taken too much time. During a time of national crises, the government often uses a broad interpretation of its role to accomplish its goals.
The US government is a system composed of ambitious people who are willing to acquire as much power as they can. The federal government was formed to prevent the abuse of power the framers experienced from Great Britain. In order to avoid rule from a tyrannical government, the US government was divided into three branches. Each branch had separate spheres of influence where they had jurisdiction, but each also had the power and responsibility to be sure the other branches weren’t exceeding their boundaries. Although the enumerated powers have been defined by the constitution for over 200 years the government must continue to be monitored for potential abuses. In 2002, President George W. Bush announced a global War on Terrorism. As commander-in-chief the president has the power to control the national armed forces, but it is not within his power to declare war. Nonetheless, that is essentially what he did during his 2002 State of the Union address. The power to declare war is one vested in the body of Congress, but the circumstances surrounding the recent terror attacks and the desire of many Americans to do something, in essence, nullified the former president’s unconstitutional actions.
In a perfect world, the government would never overstep their boundaries and respect the liberties of its people at all times, but that is not always the case. The constitution does not qualify the rights of citizens to only apply during peacetime, but this is the canon of how our rights are viewed. Unfortunately, it is difficult to say how to solve this problem, because due to the timeliness of preparing for war it seems unconstitutional behavior like that of presidents Lincoln and Bush will continue to be practiced.
Word Count: 561
@ Jazzy
ReplyDeleteYou argued a very concise and well defined argument. Your example of the Patriot Act really illustrated your argument very well and did not detract from your main point. You had a clear and focused voice throughout the essay which made it easy to follow your line of thinking.
After the 9/11 attacks Americans a war started between US and Al-Qaeda. This event brought Americans together and many risk their lives and were sending to Iraq to fight for their country. Some of the reasons why they were send to Iraq are they want to fight for their country, they were worried about the safety of America and its families and they were proud to be Americans and they understood that it was an honor to fight and buttress for their country. However, if citizens are send to the battlefield without their consent this will cause other problems because first, the US will show that it violates rights it gives to its citizens, second, if the citizens are not happy and are send to the war their behavior could change once in the battlefield and finally by being away these citizens will are deprived of their families.
ReplyDeletePeople think that the canon is for Americans have the right of this country to go and fight in foreign country. As citizens they have the responsibility to stand up for their country and provide safety to their families. However, the U.S. should not be talking about the responsibilities citizens have because the US violates the rights these citizens for example their consent of whether or not to go to war. Citizens are giving certain rights as citizens and their right to choose whether or not to fight in the war should be up to each person and not be decided by the government who will not be fighting in the battlefield.
Some citizens are proud when they are sent away to fight for their country. But there are some exceptions that are not happy about being at the war and there are some good reasons for this. They are aware of all the dangers and know that they may die in a foreign country. When these people are not happy about being in the war this have an effect in how they behave in the battlefield. They may not kill the enemy because they are not happy or proud to be there and they may not want to kill innocent people who are not responsible for this war. This will not benefit the country but will cause more problems because if the soldier is not willing to kill the enemy then the enemy will kill some of our soldiers.
When soldiers are away their main focus is to fight the enemy and protect their country. They work as a team and are all one to provide safety to their families. However, these soldiers give up a lot of things like family when they are away. Family is one of the most important foundations of the American life and these soldiers miss important family occasions that will not come again. For example, his wives give birth to a baby, his child starts to talk and he missed the graduation of his child. These are occasions that are important to a father, brother or uncle and people miss because they have to fight for their country.
There is no doubt that safety and pride are cogent reasons why a person should be force to go to the war. However, there are other factors that should be taken into account when a life will be change and others will be affected by this decision. The government should not infringe the rights of its citizens in times of war because these rights are what define America. Americans enjoy liberties and have rights that other countries do not give to its citizens. It is anti-American to violate the rights the government gives to its citizens.
As our society finds itself once again entrenched in a long standing war against a foreign ideology, the argument of whether or not the government has the right to infringe on civil liberties has arisen. While our nation was founded on the protection of natural rights and the establishment of individual liberties, for a country to successfully wage war and protect its citizens, it must be able to make infringements on civil rights.
ReplyDeleteThose who are opposed to the government infringing on civil liberties cite the constitution and the values on which are country was founded, however even in the revolutionary war, civil liberties were suspended for the greater good. This has continued for almost every war that America has served in since the revolutionary war. Upholding of certain civil liberties such as completely unrestricted free speech is often counter-productive to the war effort and can result in lowered moral, the spread of false information, and a feeling of disunity. During the world war two, civil liberties were restricted by limiting of speech, the rationing of all consumables, and the use of the draft to fill ranks. Without these infringements on civil liberties, it can be argued that America would not have been able to produce the resources needed to fight a war in two separate theaters simultaneously and emerge victorious.
The most debated civil liberty that is infringed upon in war time is the supposed right to privacy established by the fourth amendment. This amendment was designed to prevent unlawful searches and seizures, but has been transformed into an overall guarantee of privacy of one’s property and conduct. The debate in has risen in America, after the passing of the Patriot Act by President Bush that allowed the government to listen to phone conversations of suspected terrorist without a warrant. While many claim this violates the civil liberty of privacy, its application does not as their shouldn’t be an expectation that communications of any sort should be guaranteed private. Furthermore methods such as these are necessitated to counter an enemy that has become unconventional and is skilled at infiltrating a countries civil population. The law has led to the successful apprehension and detainment of terrorist within the United States that planned on targeting civilians.
While a government should never be able to constantly infringe on its citizens civil liberties or completely remove them, times of war necessitate the temporary suspension or modification of these rights for the greater good of national security. Without the ability to temporarily infringe on civil liberties, many governments would be limited to addressing unconventional enemies with conventional methods, which may result in the worse infringement on civil liberties possible, the right to live.
Word count 446
@Michael D.
You made a very good point in arguing the benefits that academics has received from being funded by the government. While some research has probably been biased due to the source of funding, I’m sure our International Policy has been shaped in a positive way by the work done by the multiple research centers started with government funds.
The government does not have the right to curtail the civil liberties of citizens during times of war. Losing civil liberties does guarantee that security will be enhanced and that the protection of the citizens will be achieved. The lose of one civil liberty will lead to a slippery slope where other civil liberties can be lost as it becomes more difficult to retain
ReplyDeleteThe loss of a civil liberty such as freedom of speech could lead to an environment where the media could be controlled by the government. Controlling the content that people receive is a very powerful tool that can be used to push agendas. The Iraq war was started on the premise that the Iraq possessed weapons of mass distraction. The news media covered this looming threat, only to demonstrate that presidents Bush’s fear mongering had little credence behind it. If the government controlled what people could say or report on, the American people will be continually lead into pointless wars.
Over the course of president bush’s presidency the powers of the executive branch of government increased at the expensive of the civil liberties the American people had. Wiretapping of citizens without proper legal procedure or the need for a just cause was an invasive step by the American government. This power provided by the “Patriot Act” can be exploited to no end and be used against individuals that might not agree with the current administrations agenda.
World War II brought the issue of internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. The unjust detainment of American citizens to protect the United States from potential spies demonstrates another period where the American government has gone too far. If this practice would be extended to our current times, would it be just to have people of Middle Eastern descent retained in camps? Most would agree that it would not be a just thing to do. The potential of the government to select out a group to keep in internment camps violates the rights and liberties of the citizens the government is set to protect.
During times of war, a country will undergo several changes that reflect the changing times and conflict it chooses to pursue. The government should not use these times to expand its power at the expense of its citizens.
word count: 382
Because of the social and ethical unrest that occurs during times of war, some may believe that "it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens". or disagree with this entirely. The pressing times of war that fuels this ambivalence cannot go unacknowledged. Although war presents variables that forces government officials to act with alacrity and justifiably, these actions must take care not to be too rash or illogical. If we allow the government to infringe upon civil liberties, a potential schism between the opinions and welfare of society may occur. Furthermore, a worse result of this schism could lead to anarchy, weakening a country rather than fortifying it. Therefore, although war may ask of its citizens to cooperate in certain manners to protect the nation as a whole, it is unjustifiable that the government should always infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteTimes of war may require citizens to act in cooperation with government; however, it is not always necessary to infringe upon civil liberties in this cooperative process. Because of the events of September 11th, America has been forced to retreat into a defensive state where the protection of citizens is a major priority . This has caused areas that contain large amounts of diverse people passing through it, such as airports, to be on high alert of any suspicious activity. Although this is a logical response to the tragedy, suspicious activity has lead to major discriminatory acts such as stopping completely innocent people that resemble what we associate as "terrorists" in airports and other public places. Because civil liberties is the freedom that this melting-pot nation was built upon, the realization that it is not always necessary to infringe upon these liberties during times of war is important for the welfare and morale of a nation.
Although the protection of citizens is a priority during times of war, protection can easily become communist-like control if taken too far. An example of this in American society today is the Patriot Act. Although the events of September 11th presented our nation with a major need to fight back and prevent an analogous tragedy from occurring again, our civil liberties and privacies have been put through the fire. All communications that transpire throughout the nation are now recorded and accounted for. If not treated with care, this act may lead government officials to turn weak towards their avarice for more power and control, creating a communist nation instead of a free one.
Always allowing the government to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens may cause severe social unrest, to the point of a coup. This is most clearly conveyed in Cuba's history. Communism within Cuba was originally intended to not only protect the welfare of its people, but to create equality throughout the nation. However, instead of using certain infringements of the civil liberties of its citizens for the better, the situation erupted into a series of revolutionary attacks due to the social unrest of the citizens during this time. For this reason, although war may present a necessity for citizens to cooperate accordingly, civil liberties must be upheld to a certain degree in order to prevent severe social unrest that may lead to revolutionary actions within the nation.
Finally, due to the social unrest and discrimination that can stem from the consistent infringement of civil liberties during times of war, nations that exercise these liberties must take care in their judgements and decisions made during these times. If the infringement of civil liberties becomes always essential for protection, a nation may experience its own induced tragedies.
When faced with the grueling decision to declare war, governments must take many factors into account; from the likelihood of being successful to how it will impact its citizens to the economy. Governments are also faced with the question; it is permissible to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens? The answer is no, civil liberties have been established and serve a valuable purpose for a nations citizens.
ReplyDeleteDuring any war time the goal of government is to come home victorious and to have the unwavering support of its citizens and very few dissidents. To allow governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of citizens is the gateway to many injustices. While in times of war it may be necessary to implement certain restrictions or changes to ensure the safety of citizens, however these should remain within reasonable limits. For example imposing a curfew or requiring that citizens become more sustainable with resources. Not crossing the line of violating the essential civil liberties, such as the right to free speech.
The purpose of the government is to protect and maintain order, to allow for a productive and functioning society. This has been achieved by establishing legislation. In times of war this standard should not change. As a citizen of a nation it is without saying that one should be a law abiding citizen and respect the civil liberties of others and the institution of government, so it is only right that the government show the same respect in return. To allow the government to violate civil liberties, especially in America would be a slap in the face to all those who came before this generation. Many figures in history have worked so hard and sacrificed immensely in order for citizens to have the rights we often take for granted today. Many things like one’s right to vote, to drive or walk anywhere at any time or one’s right to bear arms.
Times of war should be taken seriously and the safety of citizens of a nation should always be the first priority of government, not the right to infringe upon the civil liberties of citizens because they have the authority to do so. Most would argue that during such a crucial time it becomes necessity but where do you draw the line? Government should not be treating its own citizens like the enemy, however should be working to unify the nation in an unstable time.
*Word Count: 406
There is a catholic argument as to whether or not the government has the permission to violate the rights of its citizens during war. Governments are charged with the job of protecting its citizens from foreign and internal threats but at what cost. In this paper, I will argue that governments (focusing on the United States) should not have the ability to breach the rights of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteAmerica as we know it was founded on people refusing to have their rights infringed on by an unlawful government. The Declaration of Independence states, “… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…” Due to our founders declared independence from the British government, we cannot allow the government to walk on our rights. Some might counter that when Thomas Jefferson wrote this there was no war. However, I argue that anytime when the government is using its power to alienate people it is a time of war.
The Declaration of Independence also states that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The key word in this passage is consent because if the people disagree on what the government is doing we have the right to fight against it. I am not saying that there should be anarchy but that we can change the government to be auspicious.
The major argument for the other side is that govern mental actions against rights have saved lives in cases like the Patriot Act. However, how many people were wrongly accused of crimes based on their ethnicity or appearance. Also this act gave the government the ability to obtain personal communication systems of people throughout the United States. People have the freedom of speech and also to not be worried about whether or not an FBI agent is listening to their conversation. The Patriot Act gave the government more powers without really consulting the people due to its hastily passing through the Senate after 9/11.
In additional point is how do the governments define war time? If it is defined by whether or not soldiers are stationed in other countries and are being killed than most governments are always in war time. In this case, than the government is always infringing upon its people’s rights and there will be no end to this epidemic.
In summary, governments should not be able to infringe upon their citizens civil liberties for the reasons of the country’s foundation, freedom of speech, and fact that there is always war. These facts suppress the counter argument because the people will be affected by the governments overbearing presence in society.
@ Candice
ReplyDeleteGreat essay! You really seem to have a firm grasp on what you are talking about. I really appreciate your audacity and confidence.
@ Kris
ReplyDeleteWhile we have different views on the argument, I can appreciate your stance. You used very valid and strong examples in history to present a strong argument. I really like your WWII example.
@Yael,
ReplyDeleteI like your point of communism and how it has affected Cuba. This is a very strong argument however it would have been nice to have some more facts to buttress your thesis. Also the statement about the Patriot Act and vocabulary usage really developed your statement.
Civil rights and liberties issues often serve as some of the most common reasons for debate and conflict. America and other “New World” societies were founded on the idea that these rights should be broader and uncompromised. Historically, these issues became the root of revolution and war but more recently the antipodal statement is true as war causes changes in civil liberties. It has been proposed, that "In times of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens" but those who agree with this broad statement forget that such permission often does more harm than good, exceptions always exist, and limits of this power need to be established. By glossing over these facts, supporters miss the great propensity for harm to be done based upon such a statement.
ReplyDeleteWhile extension of the power of the government and enforcement agencies may assist in the protection of citizens, the programs and laws that allow it often do more harm than good. During the Cold War, Senator Joe McCarthy and his committee routed out many Communist sympathizers and supporters who could potentially have been Russian spies; the majority of the actions taken against these people were later overturned, declared illegal, and the term associated with process, McCarthyism, is now used politically to castigate those claims made without proper proof. More recently, the Patriot Act that was signed into law in 2001 gained heavy criticism and led to public mistrust of the government as news of misuse of information found through the wire taps it authorized surfaced. Programs that increase government capabilities and restrict civil liberties often gain the buttress they need in times of war but rarely produce the desired result in as little as one fourth of the situations in which power is used.
Even though there are some situations where sacrifices in civil liberties have resulted in the desired positive results, there is no ground for saying that such action “is always permissible.” Anytime rights are taken away the cause for it should be evaluated based upon the situation at hand and its associated threats and benefits. Allowing for broad shifts simply based on government’s job to serve as an aegis to its citizens gives loopholes for tyrannical policies. During World War II, the US government placed all Japanese Americans in internment camps. Besides having to apologize and pay for it years later, the military had to reconsider this broad assumption of the risk posed by every citizen in the group and ended up training and using all-Issei units to fight in the both theaters during the war. The government could have avoided chagrin and guilt by evaluating the threat posed by each citizen or family individually. In more extreme cases, the Nazi’s ability to infringe upon the liberties of its citizens resulted in the deaths of millions without any legitimate reason. Allowing for rights to be given and taken in any wartime situation is dangerous for the short and long term
The case of Nazi detention facility clearly shows the need for limits on any government power. Since the government does the limiting of civil liberties, it is counterproductive for it to also take on the responsibility of seeing that the power isn’t taken too far. In this country, our system of checks and balances generally makes this okay since the Congress allows the extra latitude to the Executive branch while it and the Judicial branch have the ability to ensure that its used properly. In many other countries, all power rests with one group making an endorsement like the statement a very dangerous trigger to a potentially destructive series of events. Oppressive political regimes in South America, Africa and some Asian nations have used similar doctrine to imprison political enemies on false grounds and to gain land or other resources for personal gain. Limits help improve public confidence in government by protecting against abuses.
ReplyDeleteCivil rights and liberties, often fought for, are granted with good reason. Anytime they are taken away, limits upon the extent of removal should be established along with adequate evidence of the necessity. This way any harm done can be truly justified contextually and major offenses have a better chance of being avoided.
Word count 725
@ Ariel
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position and like how you used the article to really buttress your argument. You brought up a good point about the definition of "wartime".
Former President, Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded” (Gibbs 1). As “everyday” Americans we are rarely ever called upon to give our opinion on the critical issues that often pose a significant change to our lives. As an example, controversial debate has emerged from the idea that in time of war, it is always permissible for governments to infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. Some would argue that this is indeed true; and that we as citizens must make sacrifices to ensure our personal safety and the overall well being of our country. However, what seems to be a popular wartime belief is now more than ever becoming an ever so distasteful reality in the minds of many, which ignores and at times infringes the notion of inalienable citizen rights in the United States. Ultimately, we as Americans are faced with two choices. We come to the realitization and accept that to avoid living in fear from the alarming threats by terrorist we must give up some rights in return for protection. On the other side of the spectrum, we can come together and voice our opinions to public leaders and share on the negative impact organizations such as the CIA pose on the lives U.S citizens. Hence this debate, I shall argue for the preceding idea with a focus on the world of academia and its relationship with the CIA; that we as U.S citizens must give up some rights to an extent, in order to maintain the security and safety we as Americans have always enjoyed. If we do not put aside our ambivalent emotions aside and engrave this idea into our heads, we will be met with a situation that may prove to be similar if not worse than September 11.
ReplyDeleteAlthough U.S government organizations such as the CIA have remained ever so secretive and still in their actions, performed studies etc they are today taking a new approach more than ever before. Today we are seeing a strong cooperative relationship which one could argue is a result of coming to the conclusion that we must give up some rights to ensure our country’s overall safety and security. This not new, but rather more frequent relationship is one which has risen between the world of academia and the CIA. According to David Gibbs in his article titled the “CIA is Back on Campus” he states, “In the new atmosphere of patriotic commitment, American academics have been called upon to serve in the war against terrorism--especially by serving as consultants to the Agency” (Gibbs 1). Throughout the article Gibbs argues that this relationship should be non-existent and makes references to the activities of the CIA, and how they conflict with the world of academia. For example he refers to the notion that academia is suppose to have a measure of freedom or as he says “independence” from the state. He writes that professors in the social sciences must be able to analyze and present findings of official policy. As a result this close relationship between the world of academia and the CIA compromise the possibility for such criticism to take place. However, I firmly believe that this criticism must be put to use. Certainly professors may feel obliged to offer words of support rather than opposition. But what if this criticism could help the CIA manifest into something better or assist them in performing operations better. Rather than stick to the long standing ideals of doing things one way could be replaced with the idea of doing something another way, one in which only the bright and exploratory mind of a professor at a university could think of.
@ Candice
ReplyDeleteI thought you made a strong argument based on how you felt. You gave examples to help grasp the idea you were writing about. Although are ides seem somewhat different, I respect your opinion because of the view you provided.
In times of war and crisis it is always permissible for the government to infringe upon the rights of its citizens if it is for good of its people. As defined in this country, the role of government is to protect its citizens to the best of its abilities. In his article “The CIA is back on Campus” author David N. Gibbs argues against the involvement of the government in the fields of academia, claiming it to be an abuse of professional talent. But it is a well-known fact that war is a major driving force behind the development of new technologies and processes that otherwise would have taken years to discover or mass-produce. The truth is that if the good of the people is better served by the infringement of their civil liberties then the government has accomplished its chief task towards its people- their safety.
ReplyDeleteDuring the time of war a major concern of both the government and the military of any given country is the leaking of important information that can be utilized by the enemy. On many occasions, the United States has enforced the Sedition Act in which the civil rights of freedom to the press and speech are limited. In light of the enforcement of the Sedition Act, is it more important to protect the rights of individuals or the good of the people as a whole. Is it more important to protect the freedom of speech and press or risk the possibility that the enemy discovers the location of your fleet or troops, or even the future plans for your military? As the famous saying goes, “Lose lips sink ships”, if the better of a nation is better served by the suspension of certain civil rights during a time of war then that should be the course of action for a government.
Another point to consider in the situation of the prompt that was posed this week are the preventive measures that a government can take to assure the safety of its citizens. It is true that in this country many people feel it is a civil right to attend to their private affairs the outside of the view of the government. But what about activities that endanger the lively hood of other citizens, shouldn’t the government have the capabilities to prevent disasters before they can happen. Now, opponents to the motion that the government should have more access to “private” information would advocate that it is under the rights of the citizens to maintain their own affairs private. But what would a law-abiding citizen have to hide from the government if they conduct themselves in a legal and respectable manner? And wouldn’t it be worth suspending some civil rights if it meant the prevention of another terrorist attack?
The truth is that the war between the rights of the individual citizen and the good of the people as a whole will continue well into the future. But the point that must remain clear is that the sole role of any government is to keep its citizens safe in times of danger and during times of war. With this being said, civil liberties- in times of war, may and should be suspended for the greater good of the people as a whole.
@ Ariel
ReplyDeleteI really liked your argument and thought that you made a valid point with the quotes from the declaration of Independence. But has you said, isn't it the role of government to protect its people in a time of crisis? While the declaration states that we have the right to change our government if we fell that it is not serving our needs as citizens, times of war change everything, and if it means that the good of the people is better served with a temporary suspension of some liberties then isn't it worth the sacrifice?
During times of great uncertainty for public security, the government must take action to both re-establish order and provide protection for its people. As such, in circumstances of war or conflict, the government often creates regulations in order to secure areas and establishes laws in efforts to protect the public. While these measures appear necessary in order to protect citizens, there is much debate about the extent to which the government may regulate individuals and infringe upon their rights. This is because many protective measures call for restrictions of certain freedoms, yet without some restrictions there is limited protection that the government can provide. This debate raises an important question, when should individual rights come before security for all? Based on past conflicts, individuals seem willing to follow sensible security procedures during times of war. However, individuals would not find it permissible to infringe upon the civil liberties such as freedom of speech, privacy, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure during times of war.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech is an important liberty to individuals overall, but is especially significant during times of war. This liberty gives individuals the right to speak about their position and thoughts about conflicts that occur. This right also extends so that individuals are able to protest and rally in support or against a cause. Individuals feel very strongly about the protection of this civil liberty as it has played a significant role in past and current conflicts. For example, the Vietnam war was an instance where much of the public openly disagreed with the U.S’s involvement in the war. Freedom of speech protected these disputes and allowed individuals to have a voice, despite their opposition to government’s actions and involvement in the war. Infringement of this liberty in any way during times of war would be met with opposition because the public will defend their right to speak freely about the government’s actions during war.
Likewise, the protection of privacy is another civil liberty that the public will defend if it is infringed upon. With the most recent war there have been many security measures taken to prevent terrorist attacks. Airport security and entrance is more extensive. The public generally is accepting of such measures because this is infringing on privacy in a public domain, such an airport. However, the Patriot Act, which restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. This Act invades privacy in various places and even at home. Although this act’s efforts are to create more security for everyone, others worry that infringement of privacy will also lead to unreasonable and search and seizure. Monitoring the actions of individuals should only happen when there is reason to suspect they are a threat.
In conclusion, while authorities and government want to take measure to protect the public during times of war, there are certain areas in which the public would oppose. Infringing on freedom of speech, certain areas of privacy and unreasonable search and seizure would create public uproar. The government needs to realize that it is these very liberties that are the foundations of our freedom. Without them, we are no longer a democratic, free society.
word count: 533
When America is at war, it becomes a confusing time in this country. While our nation stands upon the foundation of freedom and liberty, these values are often pushed aside when the government fears a greater outside threat. Though our fear may sometimes blind us, it is important to always stay true to the belief in our rights that bind us and never allow ourselves to sacrifice them. When we permit the government to take away our freedoms as they did following 9/11, we are permitting them to take away our identity.
ReplyDeleteLegislation, such as the Patriot Act passed in 2001, undermines the freedoms that we are fighting to protect. When we become paranoid enough to risk our rights, the terrorists are winning just as if they had taken down another building. Though some argue that national security is more important than one’s own privacy, but if we lose our right to privacy, we have already lost before we have even begun to fight. We must fight with honor and not give in to our fears. We must have the courage to do what we know is right.
It is still important during times of war to keep a watchful eye on government power. It is very easy to submit our right over due to the many secrets the government keeps and the fear they instill, but it is our job as citizens to monitor the amount of control they possess. Our founding fathers constructed this nation so that the people may have control over the destiny of their country. Too often American citizens do not understand the power that is constitutionally given to us, and much of this is the fault of our own government. We must take our jobs as American citizens seriously and use our power to protect our ideals and ourselves.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Nobody can acquire honor by doing what is wrong”. As a nation, we understand that sacrificing our rights is wrong. We understand that honor is a value we hold dear. We must never let our fears get the best of us and permit our government to strip of us what makes us the United States of America. It is integral that Americans are informed and understand what we are allowing our government to do, whether it is bombing another country or tracking our use if he internet. These acts change our lives and the lives of people around the world and it is our responsibility to understand who, what where when, and why at all times. Though it may seem like a daunting responsibility, it is a small price to pay for our irreplaceable freedoms.