Civil Liberties During World War II

During the early twentieth century the protection of civil liberties gained importance in the American opinion. In contrast to the many casualties of World War I, the Progressivism faith, that had an active federal government, had taken over the national purpose and deepened the enjoyment of freedom in the hearts of Americans. In the eyes of the Progressives, Prohibition, wartime and postwar repression, and the pro-business policies of the 1920’s were all things of how public power could go awry. This created a new appreciation for civil liberties as an essential factor of American freedom. The 1920’s was the birth of the logical concept of civil liberties and the start of important legal protection of freedom of speech against the U.S. government.

I believe it does, however, during wartime things may be redefined such as in the USA Patriot Act where some of the civil rights are waived if an individual is suspected of terroristic connection of activity. Our government needs to be able to gain knowledge and protect our country. In times such as these, it is necessary to adjust or modify the guidelines set in place.

During WWII many civil liberties were affected and felt by the American people; some of these decisions include new policies on foreigners and civil defense groups in towns. A major facet of homefront life in WWII was the discrimination faced by Japanese/German/Italian Americans, especially the Japanese, After the attack on Pearl Harbor which drew the United States into the war, Americans developed a fear towards immigrants and foreigners; not unlike the fear felt during the 1920’s after WWI. Local, state, and federal governments began drafting new laws and policies against persons whose ancestry is that of any of the Axis powers (Italy-Germany-Japan). For instance, a new law stated that all residents (“enemy aliens”) of German, Japanese, or Italian descent were required to register with the government, submit to fingerprinting, and list all their organizational affiliations. In addition, many of these peoples were forced to submit to curfews and travel restrictions. Furthermore, during this time, Japanese persons could not join the military until 1943 due to racism and fears of the American people. In February of 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which designated certain areas as war zones, and allowed for the removal of anyone for any reason. This led to the internment of Japanese people. Japanese-Americans were forced to either store or sell nearly all their property and belongings, only permitted to take “necessities”,

In order to understand rights and liberties during wartime situations, some background information needs to be addressed and explained. This paper will explain the definition of habeas corpus and the role of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive Branches of government during wartime and conflicts, how the President will sometimes take matter into his own hands.

In the second paragraph of Ronald Reagan’s, the speaker states that we must recognize the internment of Japanese Americans was more than a mistake. The speaker means that the government tries to justify the internment by expressing that everything that happened during the war including the misconducts were ways that American was “struggling for survival”. Also in paragraph two, Reagan says “ The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Japanese Americans, served with immense distinction to defend this nation, their nation, Yet back at home, the soldiers’ families were being denied the very freedom for which so many soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.” Then in paragraph four, the speaker says, “The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese Americans…who were relocation or retained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost

The constitutional rights violated during the war (concentration camp)". The concentration war was the World War II internment during the 'War relocation Camps' and involved around 110,000 Japanese Americans who were from the US pacific coast. The U.S government ordered this internment during the year 1924 when Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor. There was violation in the freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to assemble. There was also violation of the right of Restrictions on Powers of Congress. This was due to violation in the freedom of Japanese Americans religion, with respect to the practices in the Eastern beliefs of their religion. Those who belonged to Shinto religion could not exercise their freedom of worship in the camp, whereas the administrators of the camp encouraged Christianity. They also restricted Buddhism through use of bans placed the Buddhist clergy in the Department of Justice internment Camp.

In addition, the constitutional rights of the people were restricted during the Civil War. As Confederate troops marched towards Washington D.C. and rioters among the Border States gained momentum, President Abraham Lincoln sought to diminish the movement of both groups. To do this, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. The doctrine of habeas corpus is the right to bring a prisoner before a court in order to determine if imprisonment is necessary. President Lincoln suspended this right in order to detain “disloyal persons” and stop the spread of disloyalty throughout the Union. Although the suspension of habeas corpus is protected under the Constitution, President Lincoln abused his executive powers. He was not given the power to suspend

Since the birth of the United States there has been attacks on personal liberties that have peered through in the policies that have been passed by the government. They are played off as necessary to the security of the individual and have the agenda of control, those in power are not in favor of the people having the true power in the relationship between government and citizen. The government has had numerous attempts to invade on the civil liberties that have been afforded to us by the United States Constitution and by the memberships such as the UN and the ICCPR which is an international human rights treaty. The treaties that a government agrees to a vital for all of those involved, when a country joins they are stating that they will defend

Dudziak is questioning the “impact of the wartime narrative on US law and policy,” as wars are often used as justification to institute policies that conflict with our civil liberties. The author is concerned about abuses to individual rights based on an expansion to the national security state. She states in the last line of her book, “When we understand that 'wartime' is an argument, rather than an inevitable feature of our world, then we can see that it need not cause us to suspend our principles. Our times do not determine our actions, they do not absolve us from judgment.” For Dudziak, our rights, freedoms, and civil liberties, go beyond any timeframe instilled by a wartime agenda or executive power, and should be maintained through any turbulent period. She strongly disagrees with Cicero’s inter arma silent leges, believing that “law is not completely silent in wartime,” but must be preserved despite the wartime political rhetoric for the security of the

In today’s world security and civil liberties has become a balancing act. Antiterrorism is defined as incorporates the practice, military tactics, techniques, and strategy that government, military, police, violent non-state actors and business organizations use to combat or prevent terrorism. Civil liberties are the personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, by law, constitution, or judicial interpretation. The government to underhand violations of civil liberties has used the fears of terrorism since the 9/11 attacks. Without realizing it the American people are in some way or form trading civil liberties for a better sense of security.

National Security and freedom are two different things but they go together. During WWII the United States had to put the Japanese in internment camps so the US citizens could be safe. They risked the Japanese’s freedom for the safety of the citizens.

{{General John L. DeWitt, the Commander of the Western Defense Command in 1942, expressed, “A Jap’s a Jap. It makes no difference whether the Jap is a citizen or not” (A More Perfect Union). The commander conveyed the opinion of the majority of the United States during the 1940’s.}}{{After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, Japanese civilians all across the nation were placed under intense scrutiny and faced mass hatred and discrimination. They were automatically thought of as aliens and trespassers and were arrested from their own homes and placed in internment camps.}}{{The validity of the reasoning of this nationwide hatred that the Japanese Americans faced can’t be questioned because their rights were violated and the internment camps

Determining and defining the boundaries of the war powers of Congress and the President can be exceedingly abstruse, and it continues to vex the court system into the modern era. Moreover, this is exacerbated by the fact that the political quarrels between the President and Congress continue to permeate into the judicial system. The courts cannot adjudicate political issues, and it is not the appropriate institution to do so. Interpreting the law and deciding legal issues is within the purview of the courts not political questions. This dispute must be resolved between the President and Congress. Petitioner, Sen. Robert Haskel, argues that President Sonja Adams violated Article I Section 8, the declaration of war clause, of the U.S. Constitution.

When the existence of our country is threatened, our rights may be restricted. Though this war in question did not threaten the existence of the United States, but for the best interest of the entire country some of our civil rights can be given up.

Ever since terrorists attacked on the infamous day 9/11/2001, there has been a war going on. Not just in the terror being caused by President Bush’s reaction (think Operation Shock and Awe, also known as rapid dominance), but closer to home in courtrooms defending human rights for prisoners with indefinite prison terms in Guantanamo and other offending parties of humanity. On the forefront of defending people who didn’t have a chance because of associations is the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The motto for CCR is: “The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (https://ccrjustice.org)