Should Civil Liberties Be Restricted During Times of War

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In order to protect the nation, President Lincoln was entirely justified in suspending rights during the wartime situation. The North would have had no chance of victory over the Confederacy’s superior military had Lincoln not supported our small, inexperienced army. It was also crucial that the President kept the slave-holding Border States to be able to lure the

The camps that the Japanese-Americans were taken to had the worse conditions imaginable. “More than 120,000 Americans of Japanese Ancestry were incarcerated in 10 camps scattered throughout the Western United States during World War II” (Children of the Camps Project 1). Detainees spent many years in these camps. They were locked behind barbed wire fences, and armed guards patrolled the camps. The conditions were comparable to the Jewish camps in Eastern Europe. Entire families lived in quarters that were poorly constructed and horribly cramped. These areas were also unbearably cramped and unclean. There was also no hot water for dishes or showers in the living quarters. In addition, lice was a huge problem in the internment camps. These camps and the laws that our government passed against the Japanese community were atrocious. The United States experienced a terrible tragedy when Pearl Harbor was attacked. However, the American government had no right to make these innocent Americans prisoners of war. During the 1940s and 1950s the Japanese

Many times in history the Supreme Court has been faced with deciding how to treat civil liberties during war time. This raises the question, what restrictions if any should the court allow during wartime. The court is faced with making the decision on civil liberties during wartime for security reasons, and to protect the rights of the individual. While some may say that the no exception stance may put our national security at risk during war time, No exception is the only stance that is constitutionally acceptable as proven through the analysis of the different stances by examining related cases, text, and the constitution.

According to the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Nowhere in the First Amendment does it state that in times of war, the government can change the laws that have been made to protect the people of the United States. Although some thought President Wilson’s actions were just, he did not abide by the rules of the First Amendment, and because of that, he went too far in limiting people’s civil liberties during World War

After Fort Semester in South Carolina was attacked, President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus by issuing presidential executive order on 27 April 1861, which was applicable across the entire US (Manuell, 2013). Through this order, Winfield Scott, who was the commanding general of the army was authorized to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, implying that citizens in Maryland could be arrested if they were found involved in violating the country’s laws. Consequently, thousands of people were detained in being suspected of sympathizing or spying for the Confederates (Dirck, 2010).

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”,

Like all issues involving race or war, the question of whether or not it was legal and ethical to make Japanese Americans move to relocation camps in early WWII is a difficult and controversial problem. The internment of around 50,000 Japanese citizens and approximately 70,000 Japanese-American people born in the U.S. living in the American West Coast has become known as a tragedy and mistake. The government even set up numerous projects to apologize to the American citizens who were wronged (Bosworth). Still, at the time that the decision to relocate was made, the actions were constitutionally legal and seen by many as necessary. The actions were not based on racist feelings. It was, however,

During this time of injustice to the Japanese, the Americans were to busy with war to notice that what they were doing was wrong. As the war settled down and the internment camps released their people, the president declared that the unfair treatment of the Japanese was a national mistake.

The Japanese-American placement in internment camps was wrong and unconstitutional. The Japanese-American people had been living in the United States without question until the uprise of racial prejudice brought on by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Many Japanese-Americans had been born in America and lived an American life, integrated into American schools, speaking with American accents, and enjoying American culture. But, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the Japanese were suddenly seen as threats that needed to be controlled. Without any consent, these Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps with poor conditions and treated as if they were ticking time bombs themselves.

These internment camps were not execution camps. Although these camps held Japanese-Americans against their will, they did not pose dangers that would affect the well-being of the citizens. Additionally, thousands of American citizens are engaged in warfare in the military. Being part of the military is far worse than being evacuated to an internment camp. According to a statement made by Representative Leland Ford in 1942, “[...] if an American born Japanese, who is a citizen, is really patriotic [...] he should be willing to do it if he is patriotic [...] As against his sacrifice, millions of other native born citizens are willing to lay down their lives, which is a far greater sacrifice, of course, than being placed in a concentration camp” (Document A). As citizens of the United States, it is the Japanese-American’s patriotic duty to make sacrifices for the country’s safety, which are not dreadful in comparison to the sacrifices other citizens make for the country. Many Americans imperil their lives by serving in the military forces. Japanese-Americans are solely being relocated for defense purposes. The Secretary of War, who President Roosevelt gave power to, must provide the proper necessities for those who were being relocated into the internment camps, the Japanese-Americans. These resources included food and shelter, fundamentals to survive. The United States did not have the intention

“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be

The Japanese-American Internment was a necessary choice, made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It helped to make our nation secure during times of extreme emergency and it also helped the US government to keep their enemy under watch. “The story of how Japanese American soldiers from the war’s most highly decorated US military unit came to be there is just one part of a remarkable saga. It is also a story of one of the darkest periods in American history, one filled with hardship, sacrifice, courage, injustice, and finally, redemption. It began more than a hundred years ago” (Sandler, 2013, p. 6). At the turn of the 21st century began the immigration of the Japanese to America for various reasons, but all with one thing in mind: freedom. “We talked about America; we dreamt about America. We all had one wish – to be in America” (Sandler, 2013, p. 6). The decision by these many people was a grueling and tough decision, but they knew it would benefit them in the long run. “…like their European counterparts, they were willing to risk everything to begin life anew in what was regarded as a golden land of opportunity” (Sandler, 2013, p. 6). When they came to America, they were employed and were able to begin their new lives for the first part of it.

On September 15, 1863 President Abraham Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus, which is the right to due process. Anyone who was a confederate sympathiser or spoke out against the war were arrested, put in jail and weren 't given a trial until after the war was over. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus because he wanted to suppress dissenters to strengthen the War effort. More than 13,000 civilians in the Union were arrested under martial law throughout the War. Lincoln viewed his action as justified since he believed the country was in a time of crisis.

Roosevelt signed order No. 9066 on February 19th, 1942. This order allowed “gave to the Secretary of War and various military commanders, the power to exclude any and all persons from designated areas in order to provide security against sabotage, espionage, and fifth column activities.” Following the order, the military under the leadership of Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt relocated nearly 120,000 Japanese-Americans and Japanese immigrants from areas of the west coast to detention centers in the west. Without any doubt, the forced relocation and detention of 120,000 people are very against the constitution and is very ironic that we would put people in internment camps when we were fighting Nazi Germany that killed six million