History: Civil liberties and National Security (Essay Sample)

Name
Course
Instructor
Date
History: Civil liberties and national security
Even though, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that Americans should be protected against arbitrary governmental influence, this is not always the case. There are various civil liberties guaranteed including freedom of speech, association and press which the government can suppress. The government is also mandated to offer security and protect citizens, and at times efforts to improve security may necessitate government officials to take extreme actions. Hence, there is a dilemma on how to avoid violating civil liberties and maintain national security, especially during troubled times. According to Eric Foner as cited by cited by (Roth 350), the Bill of Rights has not always been deeply ingrained in America culture, and civil liberties have been expanded and contracted over time. This essay disagrees with the statement ‘during troubling times in American history, civil liberties or freedoms have been ignored in order to secure what is best for national security’.
One of the earliest examples of government overreach was during the Lincoln administration, when the President suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1861. The president did not consult Congress, although it was necessary to seek the approval of the legislators. At the same time, Lincoln ordered the arrest and detention of perceived rebels from the North suspected to support subversive acts. All the people were detained without trial as they were suspected to be Confederate spies, and the detention took place until the war ended. The detained persons were also tried under military courts as opposed to regular courts, based on the notion that they presented a threat to public safety. Essentially, these events showed that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as well as use of military trials violated the constitution, as there was guarantee that the detained would get fair trials outside the judicial review.
Government actions aimed at improving national security have at times been used to harass American citizens, especially minorities who are perceived to hold anti- American views. The 1941 Executive Order 9066, was such a case, where President Roosevelt allowed military leaders to select areas where Japanese Americans were excluded. Even though, the Japanese and Americans were on opposing sides, during the time leading up o the WWII, many Japanese descended citizens suffered because of the President’s directive. American citizens of Japanese extraction were imprisoned on the mere suspicion that they were a threat to American security. Even after ignoring the rights of Japanese Americans, there was no guarantee that America was safer as many of those in internment camps posed no major threat, and there was no proper investigation to understand the level of thereat posed.
Despite the notion that the government is best placed to protect Americans by limiting some civil liberties, this is not the right course of action. It is hypocritical to state that the government is protecting American citizens, while it is also violating their rights. The government has promoted its own agenda over time by hiding behind national security concerns. In a sense, the government has tended to be more tyrannical in times when there has been rhetoric that there is a need to limit aspects of the Bill of Rights. Surprisingly, this is the sort of situation, that some of the founding fathers wanted to avoid, where there was no guarantee of rights by a tyrannical government that limited the rights of Americans.
America underwent many upheavals in the 1960’s and the 1970’s, and the FBI used covert operations that limited the freedoms of America. There was recognition that it was necessary to maintain law and order while also eliminating threats to national security. Under the COINTELPRO program, the FBI resulted to disrupting activities of those against the status quo especially the left leaning groups and anti war activists. The use of infiltration, frame-ups, break- ins, and false arrests were some of the tactics used to intimidate the activists. These activities were carried out in violation of constitutional rights, based on the notion that they helped to improve intelligence–gathering activities. Overtime, the tactics have been associated with harassment, but there is no agreement on the extent to which they were effective t in improving the national security.
It is plain wrong to suggest that the American government limits rather than violates civil rights. Such an argument presupposes that these rights are only guaranteed to some Americans to the exclusion of others. The passage of the PATRIOT Act following the 9/11 attacks is a prime example of how executive authority can cause violation of civil liberties. The PAPTRIOT Act gave government officials the right to arbitrary search, investigate, wiretap phone conversations and track internet activities. According to Zinn, Terrorism has been used as a rationale for which the American government can trample peoples’ rights, militarize the country, and undertake military adventures abroad. Despite the supposed benefits of the Act, there was always a risk that there would be breach of privacy for innocent, patriotic and law abiding citizens who did not even know that they were being tracked.
Recently, the War on Terror has shown that government overreach can infringe upon the rights of Americans, with war efforts touted as being effective towards eliminating the threat of terrorism form outside America’s borders. However, Howard Zinn challenges this notion by stating that the government can create fear in people and in the ensuing hysteria people act against their own interests, and this includes disregarding government violations of their rights. Zinn further argues that by instilling a sense of fear associated with terror, Americ...