Does the government have the right to..?

Question

Lincoln had the government take on increased power during the Civil war often to the extent on violating people's rights.
Does the gov. have the right to limit personal freedom and rights in time of war?
(examples of this would be limiting freedom of speech or holding people in jail withouth charging them)
What do you think?

Answer 1

Its wrong but they do it.

Answer 2

Virtually all the presidents who have served since Washington have tried to extend presidential power, to one degree or another. Lincoln, unfortunately is no exception. He suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, for example, and he has been criticized for that. However, there is a clause in the Constitution that allows for such suspension, with Congressional approval, in times of "rebellion or invasion." Since Lincoln considered the Southern attempt to secede a "rebellion," and since he went to Congress for permission to suspend habeus corpus, only for the duration of the war, his actions can be defended.

One of the actions that Lincoln took that is much less defensible is the suppression of certain newspapers that were publishing articles critical of the war or supportive of the Confederate cause. One could make the argument that there were good reasons to do so, but presidents always seem to have "good reasons" for suspending civil rights.

I think the definitive answer to whether or not the government has a right to limit or suspend any civil liberties enumerated in the Constitution was delivered by the Supreme Court in 1866, in the case of ex parte Milligan. The Court found that "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."

Presidents, and particularly the current resident of the White House, would do well to review this landmark case when they start thinking about things like arrests without trial, indefinite detentions, and military tribunals.

Answer 3

I'll assume you mean a legal right, and you seem to referring to the United States government. Although some of those freedoms are specifically protected by the constitution, there is a very large precedent for the legislative branch enacting exactly what you're describing. Most of these acts were eventually overturned (and condemned), due to the constitution, So it seems that when there is peace, the government never has those rights. During war, the government has those rights during war.

Answer 4

Having grown up in Dubai (middle east for people who don't know). I can say that there is a lot of over-critisicm of US in the East, things that make no sense. However the patriot act and other such laws enforced nowdays makes me sad- how can one claim to be a freedom loving nation while crushing the freedom of dozens maybe even hundeds o induviduals by arresting them without warrants, tapping their phones, and torturing them in offshore prisons... it seems hypocritical.

I believed US was the embodiment of what a superpower should be like realistically, not anymore. I dreamed of working for the US govn- NASA or some high tech research facility now i know its just a pipe dream that has to die out - even as Canadian citizen, if i went to the US, being a man of south asian decent who grew up in the Middle E, there is a gud chance i would be harassed. In Europe I have been stopped for random checks more times than I would find fair - just because I am brown skinned.

It would not matter that i am a Roman Catholic turned agnostic in the US; the terror profiling leads to a guilty before proven innocent mentality among the law enforcers.
It wouldn't matter that my biggest pride in the human race is the creation of a democracy, or that i am a conscientious human being...

should i go on?...


p.s. i don't think many people realize that security and freedoms are a tradeoff. for a given resource level- you cannot have both. Any politician who speaks truth will admit this. The thing that i loved about America, was that it seemd to have guts to go for freedom, despite the costs. Now i guess reality strikes, and US seems like any other country that says one thing and does another.

edit: robert.l.sanchez@sbcgl... i heard of that quote before when i was very young- it gave me an inspired view of what america should be when i was young!

Answer 5

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like A people who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
All I know is you can't preserve a personal freedom by stomping on it.
I would think that in a time of war, at least a legitimate war, where our way of life is directly threatened, would be the most critical time to uphold and celebrate our personal freedoms. If for no other reason than to show what we are fighting for.
A government gains it's legitimacy by upholding the constitution that describes it. That also means upholding the amendments to that constitution.

Answer 6

Lincoln called for martial law at the beginning of the civil war but it was later declared unconstitutional. the gov. doesnt have the right to limit freedom but they spin it and say its for our own protection. they find loop holes, just look at guantanamo bay.

Answer 7

No, thats why the Constitution protects us. In times of war, such as now, the government may institute new guidelines and implement new programs to increase security, but violating human rights is a no-no.

Answer 8

if you take away the freedoms we are supposedly fighting for, why fight at all? what is left that you value? wars occur because people believe strongly in something- strong enough that they will die for it. in America, personal freedoms (bill of rights!!) are part of that inspiring element. it is what is quintessential about our country, and taking it away to make war etc. easier degrades what motivated the war in the first place.