Introduction - Civil Liberties vs. Security
"Inter Arma Silent Leges." This latin saying translates: "In time of war, the laws are silent." Historically this has meant that nations have in wartime curtailed rights taken for granted during peacetime. In the United States, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and even the right of legal representation have at various junctures been suspended in the interests of national security and the more efficient waging of war.These measures have usually been taken without popular consent; sometimes they have affected all citizens equally, and sometimes they have applied disproportionately to certain groups. An often-cited example has been the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
It is less well known that during the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus -- the right to come before a judge and not be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime. (The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln had overstepped his powers, but Congress legislated for the suspension of the writ for the duration of the war.)
The issues faced by law-makers and civil liberties groups today are perhaps most closely related to those raised by the Palmer Raids that took place shortly after World War I. In 1919 and 1920, A. Mitchell Palmer, the Attorney General under President Wilson, ordered a series of raids on the homes and offices of citizens suspected of being Communists. Under the Alien Act, thousands were arrested and over five-hundred were deported as suspected radicals. As in the case of the Patriot Act recently authored by the Bush administration, there was no overwhelming public outcry, and yet a significant number of citizens saw the raids as dangerous violations of the Constitution.
