What defines a law as unjust? If the president or congress made a law that limited freedom of the press to conceal a story that would pit two large ethnic societies of the American population against each other, because it would bolster immense violence, would it be unjust? It clearly violates The Constitution, so therefore is technically unjust. However, the decision is morally just and would be put forward in order to save lives.
In the popular time period in history known as the "Red Scare," the American people's fear of communism lead to a frantic development of accusations. The rising suspicion that Communist agents were planning to extract secrets from the American government to eventually over throw it, engendered a drastic infringement of rights. Technically the people still had their rights, but now without chance of accusations that could ruin your entire life. Constitutional rights were constantly being violated and persons unjustly imprisoned. The government did what it felt was necessary to protect the American people.
When is it okay to violate a person's rights? What establishes these standards?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that throughout history there have been dozens of examples of times where legislation has been put into place by the government when they have felt that the there was a grave threat to the country. One such recent example would be the PATRIOT ACT that was put into place following the September 11th attacks. This act allowed for law enforcement to conduct in-depth investigations of individuals that they felt may have had some sort of affiliation with a known terrorist group. Law enforcement was also allowed to go to any length that they deemed necessary while conducting their investigation. The main problem with this was that citizens felt that the government was stepping beyond their bounds and invading individual’s privacy. It appears that an individual’s natural rights are able to be violated when there is a threat to national security. That is because in the example, of 9/11 attacks it in some ways was an act of war that was declared on us, and the government took the steps that they felt were necessary to protect the nation and its citizens and they used the War Powers act to justify this as well as to some the vague wording of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Franklin once said: “They, who can give up essential freedom to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The only fallacy with Benjamin Franklin’s idea is that with any form of security we, as a people, lose rights; they lose freedoms of all sorts. It is impossible, or nearly impossible to heighten security without restricting a right or freedom. For example, prior to the ‘War on Terror’, journalists were allowed to enter nations such as Cambodia, Vietnam, and Korea, during times of war without military guidance and assistance in order to retrieve stories. This allowed for truths such as illegal US bombing initiated by Nixon to be available to the public. Following the ‘War on Terror’ journalists must now be led, like children, by the military. Whether this justified by saying it’s a way to protect the journalists or by keeping the government’s truths from the public, journalists and the nation lost freedoms.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I’m using freedom as a very broad concept.
But with any form of security (not just nation), whether it be as insignificant as installing a metal detector in a school, we lose freedoms.
I want to claim that it’s acceptable to reduce freedoms for security when what is gained from the act is greater then what we had before.
But what’s greater than freedom?
I don’t think it’s ever OK for the Government to put “people’s rights aside in the interest of national security”. It’s just a copout excuse for politicians to take the easy way out. The magic behind America is that the people should never have to fear their own government. However, in recent and modern U.S. History you see slowly but surely that the protection of our rights “above all else” has been given a back seat to “praying to the God’s of the Economy” or “The War on Terrorism”. These standards that have not been approved have been implemented by almost a decade of an unstable and insecure presidential cabinet who, like in solitaire, just hit the reset button when they get stuck. Hopefully, we can digress from those temporarily accepted standards of “Government first, People Second” and go back to when the Government and the People were one, “We the People…”.
ReplyDeleteI agree with doug in his post with regard to the USA PATRIOT act. I feel that this is an acceptable instance of when the government can interfere with citizens privacy. The arguement is that officials should not be able infiltrate private emails and telephone conversations without a court order as this is said to be a violation of the 4th amendment as decided in Katz v. United States, which implemented the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' clause. However, with the PATRIOT act, officials are specifically targeting terrorism through certain sections such as the anti-money laundering act which targets the funding of terrorism as well as hightened border security. This is in no way affecting the well being of the average american citizen and only helping to protect us from further spinless acts of terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it should be within a democratic governments power to restrain certain rights in times of conflict. This country is not totalitarian, or socialist, or communist, we dont even run a parliamentary system. We have representatives who we voted into office and that we trust to do the right thing. If restraining rights for a small amount of time is necessary to ensure the safety and longevity of freedom, then I completely agree with it. However, the key to my belief is it is ok sometimes and for a limited duration. The Red Scare was an example of the wrong way to restrict rights.
ReplyDeleteI think that in most cases it is wrong to violate someone's right of privacy. Violating someone's privacy takes away their right to freedom. However, in some cases I think that it's ok to. One example would be the USA PATRIOT act that was brought up in two of the previous posts. I believe that the government had the right to violate our privacy in this instance because the government was only trying to prevent any possible terrorism attacks from occuring. So if the government is trying look out for the country as a whole then I believe that violating someone's privacy is ok.
ReplyDelete