• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Guy YedwabWorld Since 1945Mr. Neblett“We'll Go Down In History With A Sad Statue Of Liberty”For a multitude of reasons, the United States today has found itself under attack by globalextremists. In the wake of the September 11
th
attacks, the United States felt that its complacency duringthe 1990's had lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent lives, and the natural reaction was to try torecreate our national security agencies to be infallible. The reorganization of many intelligence andcrime-fighting organizations under Homeland Security was one of the major changes to Americangovernment, as well as the nearly unanimously passed USA PATRIOT Act. Yet, America's honeymoonwith national security has begun to wear off, as doubts have surfaced as to the legitimacy of thecampaign in Iraq and the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. The controversy surrounding the PatriotAct and other anti-terrorism measures such as the detentions at Guantanamo Bay are not new: since thevery beginning of our country, national security has been in a struggle with civil liberties. This debatewill most likely never be resolved; the continual examination of this question keeps our government both from becoming a criminal haven like Afghanistan was, or from becoming a police state likeMaoist China or Israel.There is a delicate balance to be struck between civil liberties and national security. Any powersgiven to the government in the interest of national security can quickly become a political, economic,or personal tool wielded by people in positions of authority. While I understand the need for nationalsecurity to be defended, it must be in a way that rigidly conforms to the Constitution, and is visible tothe people, the legislature, and the Supreme Court. Unless the need is pressing and immediate –  between a few days to a few weeks – national security should pass through the same limitations as wehave placed over our criminal investigation procedures and our intelligence procedures. Any time anindividual is targeted by the government, he must have the ability to fight the charges on an equal levelwith the government (as the normal trial-by-jury system provides), national security measures taken
 
against political figures must be avoided as much as possible, to prevent abuses of politicians whooppose the majority power in government, and the authority to circumvent civil liberties must restsolely as an agreement between Congress and the President.The Constitution of the United States is widely acknowledged to be the basis of all theoreticaldiscussion on American civil liberties. On the subject of the criminal process, there are five separateamendments in the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of the criminal, as well as a clause in Section 9which says that Congress cannot suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus unless required by “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion” when “the public safety may require it. Judicial reinterpretation since then hasupheld and even expanded the rights of suspected criminals, such as the now established MirandaRights. The First Amendment also protects the rights of assembly and speech, the latter being cited asone of our most basic and important freedoms in a democracy. The Constitution is established by theSupremacy Clause to be the highest law of the land, which should not be violated by any member of government in action or by any law. It is clear to see that the defense of fair trials weighed heavily onthe minds of those who started our country. National security is mentioned less widely, and except for the clause providing for the suspension of writ, the Constitution makes no exceptions for times of emergency. Many founding fathers have commented that the Constitution applies equally in times of war and peace. Theoretically, the relation between civil liberties and national security seems cutclearly: civil liberties take supremacy in nearly every case.However, theoretical discussions are often less informative than examinations of the practicalhistory of civil liberty infringements for national security, so as to better understand what constitutes anout-and-out violation of civil liberties, as opposed to necessary give-and-take between civil liberty andnational security. The Constitution, though a very good document to serve as the basis of our government, does not foresee all nuances of application, and the interpretations of various officials andthe time wherein these decisions were made often dictate different uses of the Constitution.After the Election of 1860, the United States was in turmoil. South Carolina had led amovement of embittered Southern States into a secession movement, which threatened to tear the
 
country in half. The newly elected president Abraham Lincoln swore to keep the country united despitethe sectional fighting. Fearing the spread of unrest and dissent further north, Abraham Lincoln gave permission to the Commanding General of the US Army, General Winfield Scott, to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus whenever Scott deemed it necessary for the security of the country. In April of 1861, ameeting of the Maryland legislature was called to discuss the issue of secession, and whether Marylandwould join the newly formed Confederate States of America. Lincoln realized that secession of Maryland would leave the capital city in the middle of Confederate territory. Although he clearlyrecognized their First Amendment right to assemble in his letter to Scott, he dictated that Scott was toarrest the pro-secession members of the State Legislature. These men were held on charges of conspiracy of treason, but no evidence was ever produced and they were not brought to trial. In fact,the government had no evidence of treason except hearsay as to the voting intentions of the membersinvolved.This first example of Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus raises several alarming questions.The decision Lincoln was forced to make was unique because it pitted two sections of the Constitutionagainst each other. The suspension of habeas corpus means that, without the need to produce evidenceof a committed crime, Lincoln could hold the legislature indefinitely without having to prove any of thecharges. If, as in this case, the case against the accused was based on hearsay or even on nothing, therewould be no opportunity for the defendants to attempt to defend themselves. Lincoln knew that theMaryland legislature had not yet violated any laws of the nation, but if allowed to vote they could (andlikely would) commit an act of treason against the United States. Therefore, he felt justified inremoving not only habeas corpus but their Assembly right. In my opinion, this is actually a violation of the Constitution. Although the Constitution provides the right to suspend habeas corpus, the ability of the State Legislature to convene is protected by a separate clause of the Constitution, written inamendment. I believe that the limitations set by the Constitution have weight over the powers theConstitution gives the branches of government, not the other way around. These Constitutionalviolations (which were later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) demonstrate the ability of 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...