civil liberties
By tascerUSA
is it justifiable for a government to take away civil rights and civil liberties from citizens in a time of war?
The technical legality (and how many rights and liberties the government allows, if any) depends on the government. In some governments, some suspensions are allowed depending on rare and specific circumstances. However, I never understood how any government could engage in a war whose goal would be to obtain such rights and liberties for some, while suspending these for others. At least, I don't see how they can do that without coming off as at least strangely suspect and rather hypocritical. There have been a few times over the years where if the U.S. had lost its rally, some would have been tried as war criminals. Seems that 'winning' can make the difference and deem certain acts 'justifiable'.
While in some rare instances it may be allowed by technical legality (which is an arguable point anyway); it's just doesn't look justifiable to me. I guess I'm just not a means to an end, at any cost kind of girl.
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
I'm currently taking a politics class and am completely puzzled by this question. There are two chapters that I have read so far, one on civil rights and one on civil liberties but I still cannot distinguish the difference between the two. Can anyone explain it in simplistic terms with examples? Thanks!
Civil Rights are rights that we have that if in any case they are denied, the government is forced to take positive action. (example: discriminated against when you apply for a job)
civil liberties are rights the we have in which the government is restricted from interfering. (example: freedom of speech)
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
What were the privacy rights concerns of groups like the American civil liberties Union and the American Library Association after Congress passed, then renewed, the Patriot Act after the attack of September 11, 2001?
People in this country enjoyed the right of privacy and therefor the right to keep the government out of their lives, homes, and off of their cell phones. According to the patriot act, the government may investigate anyone they suspect of terror (which includes a very wide range of acts) by electronic, visual, or any other method of surveillance. In addition, anyone suspected may be arrested and held indefinitely.
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
What were some of the restrictions of civil liberties placed on the colonists by Parliament after the French and Indian War through 1776?
Here is one writer's suggested list of the "Top 10 Civil Liberties Violations That Helped Cause the American Revolution"
1) Taxation Without Representation
2) No Free Trade
3) Unlimited Search and Seizure
4) Destruction of Colonial Government
5) Oppression of Political Protesters
6) Immunity for Corrupt and Abusive British Officers
7) Direct Control of the Criminal Justice System
Guilty by Parliament – no guarantee of trial by jury
9) Forced Quartering of Soldiers
10) Closure of the Boston Port
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/independence.htm
(the page includes an explanation of each point)
Specific enumerations of the liberties the colonists believed had been violated are found in the various written complaints by individual colonies and by the Second Continental Congress at the beginning of the Revolution. The best know of these is, of course, the list found in the Declaration of Independence (as THE reasons for which they were declaring independence).
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
For some perspective on these complaints, and the history behind the ideas of the people's rights, note the observations about the "Declaration of Rights on 1689" and the declarations of the states (colonies) here:
http://www.saumag.edu/edavis/AmLit/2004/DeclarationofIndependenceMaierNotes.html
Another excellent place to go for perspective on which "civil liberties" the American colonists felt had been threatened or violated is the"Bill of Rights" (the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution), The first EIGHT of these enumerate and guarantee what we would recognize as civil liberties. And many if not all of these were specifically in response to the sorts of rights the colonists believed they were supposed to have as Englishmen, but which the King and Parliament had not been honoring.
I – no national establishment of religion, or prohibition of free exercise, freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
II -right to keep and bear arms
III – no quartering of soldiers without owner's consent and by law
IV – no unreasonable searches (warrants required)
V – cannot be held for crime without indictment, nor put in double jeopardy; cannot be compelled to testify vs. oneself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
VI -right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. . . must know charges, be confronted by witnesses. . . able to defend self
VII – right of trial by jury in larger civil cases
VIII – no excessive bail or fines imposed, no cruel and unusual punishments
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
The link with the Revolution is clearer when you read the similar concerns of "The Virginia Declaration of Rights", written in June 1776.
http://theamericanrevolution.org/hdocs/vdecofrights.asp
Note that serveral of these are related to judicial protection — to be fairly tried, etc. and by one's peers. This all brings to mind some of the "Intolerable Acts" passed by Parliament as punishment for the Boston Tea Party. These included the "Quartering Act" and the "Administration of Justice Act" which took away the local administration of justice in Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_Justice_Act_1774
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
Libraries are supposed to be the last bastion of freedom. But more and more I see libraries banning certain books, using websense blockers for the internet, and banning the types of art that are displayed in the library. This is not a good sign when libraries are slaves to the city council or county commission. They are supposed to be above petty politics. They are supposed to be an open minded marketplace of ideas. Libraries more than any institution in the past have known the importance of maintaining civil liberties. And that is why this trend is so disturbing. They are starting to determine and define what is inappropriate or obscene. I guess this question is for all of you first amendment or constitutional law fans out there.
I think some of you are missing the point here. I only want answers from those schooled in law. Or educated folks.
You forgot to mention that after the patriot act in 2002, under the portion titled "Total Information Security", libraries across America are now required to produce members' "reading lists" or books they have checked out.
Participating in this is the equivalent of Bell South and AT&T's special rooms where customer phone calls and records are perused by NSA officialls.
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
This isn’t meant to be partisan. Rather, if you are in Canada, do you subjectively ‘feel anything different’, or can you objectively point to explicit curtailing of liberties vis à vis what is happening in America?
Since american civil liberties have been curtailed pretty severely, one can argue it’s a good idea to ‘fight terrorism’ or whatever floats their boat, but in asking the question, it doesn’t matter what one prefers.
I live in Canada and I don’t feel my civil liberties have been curtailed. I have noticed, however, other changes that can be attributed to an American influence:
1. Our troops have always been peacekeepers. They are now fighting in Afghanistan, and about 100 deaths have occurred. I blame their involvement on the Harper government and their ass-kissing to America.
2. The inclusion of God in Harper’s speeches. God Bless Canada. The blending of church and state in Canada WILL NOT HAPPEN and this is most definitely an American influence.
3. Since 9/11 our airport security has been immense, but that has happened everywhere.
One thing is very clear to me as a Canadian,and it is the lack of freedoms that the Americans have. Canadians travel to the US a lot more than Americans go to Canada and the difference is palpable. There is a sense of relief when arriving back in Vancouver, it ‘feels’ better. Although Americans have the belief they are the most free country in the world, there is no doubt they are not. And if they got out more they would realize it.
Filed in: civil liberties
By tascerUSA
If you go to the ACLU's website, it says that it is nonpartisan, however I can't remember whether the American civil liberties Union is typically Democratic or Republican, so if you could help me out, I would greatly appreciate it.
I don't think they fit either, they are non-partisan b/c they take the side of the Bill of Rights, and both parties have members with opposing views. For instance, libertarian Republicans should support the same rights, while neo-conservative Republicans are against. Liberal Democrats should agree with the ACLU most of the time but they might be against on some issues like the Nazi's rights to march.
Looking at the list on their website, it looks like most of the social issues at this time are supported by more Democrats.
Update – Wow, an American who has no beliefs in common with the ACLU! That would exclude freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion…Must be one of those 'freedom-haters' we've been hearing about.
Filed in: civil liberties