Introduction

In unprecedented times like these, provoked by the worst terrorist attacks in American history, many people have called for action, not only abroad, but also at home. While American sons and daughters are fighting "The Evil One" -- Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, some citizens are clamoring for something to be done in the homeland ¾ something to make them safe. But what is there to be done?

In the past as well as the present, during times of crises and unknown threats, the citizens of the United States have called for immediate action. American Presidents have responded to this call time and time again with restrictions on civil rights meant to ensure the safety of the populace. But, to quote one of America's great forefathers, Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The historical practice of restricting freedoms during times of war has yielded no tangible evidence of increased safety, but instead has concretely and adversely affected the rights and freedoms of United States citizens - rights and freedoms for which our forefathers fought and died. The current War on Terrorism may lead to restrictions that are as bad, if not worse, than previous civil rights infringements because this is not a declared war on a particular country with a foreseeable end. Without a foreseeable end to the war, there is also no foreseeable end to the infringements on civil rights.

In every American war to date, the fight has not only been against enemies abroad, but also possible enemies at home. To find and fight these enemies in the homeland, many argue that civil rights must be restricted to ensure the safety of the American populace, leading to the question: which is the greater evil - having enemies within our borders or having restrictions of our civil rights? I would argue that the restrictions of our civil rights, especially with the War on Terrorism that has no foreseeable end, is the greatest evil of all.

History

Today's War on Terrorism is not the first time that there have been executive orders infringing on the civil rights of the people, both citizens and non-citizens, under the protection of the United States. It seems that during the history of the United States, presidents have often felt compelled to infringe on the rights of the American populace, with even greater restrictions on targeted ethnic and national groups, during times of war.

During the United States Civil War, in 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, or the right to have a judge review one's arrest for lawfulness. While this was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court as this power is granted only to Congress, it is an excellent example of a president infringing on the rights of the people to make the populace safer.

At that time, not only was the writ of Habeas Corpus suspended, but it was also illegal to print, publish, or disseminate any protest of the Civil War. In fact, President Lincoln had protestors arrested and jailed ¾ thereby limiting freedom of speech.

During World War II, like today, military tribunals were instated. In one particular case, eight Nazi men were sent to sabotage the United States. Some of these men had previously lived in the United States, and one in particular, George John Dasch, wished to become a United States citizen. Another saboteur, Ernest Peter Burger, did not want to go through with his act of sabotage. Dasch turned in all of the other saboteurs. After a military tribunal, Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison and Burger was sentenced to hard labor for life. Six years later, Dasch and Burger were deported back to Germany. The remaining saboteurs were pronounced guilty of spying during wartime and sentenced to death on July 27, 1942. In a military tribunal, there are no appeals. On August 8, the six remaining saboteurs were executed.

An even more famous example of civil rights infringement in World War II was the racial profiling and internment of Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans. Many of the families had sons, husbands, fathers, or other relatives fighting in the United States military. Yet, because of the color of their skin, the origin of their ancestors, and the fact that it was wartime, it was acceptable to strip them not only of their civil rights and liberties, but also of their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Today, we are fighting a new war ¾ the War on Terrorism, which is ironically said to be to protect America's freedom and way of life. This war is unlike any we have fought before. There is no true enemy country, no frontline, no clearly identifiable enemy soldier, and there is no true foreseeable end. Yet like previous presidents in wartime, President Bush is issuing executive orders that must be followed, executive orders that take away the freedom that the great leaders of the United States fought hard to achieve. President George W. Bush, with a military order issued on November 13, 2001, has especially restricted the rights of any non-United States citizens placed under the jurisdiction of the United States. In this military order, any non-United States citizen who is suspected of terrorism and is arrested will be subject to a military tribunal, where they are not afforded the rights given to anyone arrested for anything else. In a military tribunal, the rules of evidence are not the same. Evidence illegally obtained and even hearsay or unfounded accusations are admissible, making military tribunals a modern day witch hunt. A person may be convicted and sentenced by a two-thirds majority of the members of the commission present at the time of the vote, and there is no appeal process. As was seen in the World War II case with the Nazi saboteurs, a person convicted in a military tribunal may be sentenced to death.

Not only have military tribunals been instituted for suspected terrorists, now lawyer/client privilege has been infringed upon. Under the USA Patriot Act, any suspected terrorist may be monitored and taped when speaking to their lawyer, and have that tape used as evidence in court.

Analysis

According to the United States Supreme Court, any non-citizen traveling through, residing in, or in any way under the jurisdiction of the United States, is afforded the same rights as those given to United States citizens, except the rights expressly withheld from non-citizens in the Constitution, such as the right to vote.

But now, with the new executive and military orders, these rights are denied. A non-United States citizen suspected of terrorism can be sent to a military tribunal, whereas a citizen suspected of terrorism still has the right to a trial by their peers. At these tribunals, many of the rights are denied. Defendants are not subject to a quick and speedy trial, and the laws about illegal search and seizure are not applicable. Even lawyer/client privileges are infringed upon in order to convict these supposed terrorists. Not only is there rarely a trial by one's peers, but also there is no appeal process. When one can be sentenced to death, a relatively minor mistake or misunderstanding can lead to the ultimate inability to appeal.

The United States, a country of immigrants, has now decided that immigrants are not afforded the same rights as citizens, rights that were once called universal. How can laws that restrict the rights of immigrants and even tourists be justified?

President George W. Bush, Jr. told United States citizens we must not change our actions or the terrorists have won, that we "go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."

Since President George W. Bush, Jr. claims that we are fighting for our freedoms in our War on Terrorism, can he be justified in taking away the very freedoms he purports to protect? To examine this, different philosophical models can be used.

A possible reason President Bush, Jr. made those military and executive orders comes from the idea of hedonism ¾ it feels good to persecute the people who hurt the country so much. Under the theory of hedonism, a person does what feels best.

But a country cannot be run on whims and feelings, but instead must be run on laws and logic. A hedonistic society would degenerate into a society that was run by the Rule of Man. Everyone would do what felt best and eventually, it could be reasoned that following the law did not feel good, leading to laws being worthless. A president who does not rule by law, but by what "feels good" sets a poor example for the citizens of his country.

Another possible reason presidents have made executive orders that restrict civil rights is that they wish to cover all of their bases and keep popular support. Most of the United States presidents during the beginning of a war have been on their first term and are swayed by popular support ¾ that they need to win the next election and their orders are designed to help them achieve that goal. However, these executive orders can grievously infringe on rights and liberties in many ways, two of which will be examined in detail. First of all, an executive order can stop the dissemination of negative information ¾ information that might draw support against the war. Presidents have used this power time and time again. For example, President Lincoln used this power during the Civil War. By stopping negative commentary, presidents can control the image of war ¾ they make the war, and themselves, look better in the eyes of the public, thus helping to ensure reelection.

Secondly, often in war, the United States citizenry calls for decisive presidential action ¾ any action will do. So, to keep the voters happy, the president writes and signs executive orders showing that he is a tough, no nonsense guy and is actually fighting the enemy.

If the government silence dissent, it acts against some of the basic principles our forefathers fought for ¾ the ability to dissent is protected in the First Amendment of the United States' Constitution. This right to dissent should be available in wartime as well as peacetime. Healthy debate about war ensures freedom and is required to stop abuses such as the Nazi death camps. But when the voices of justice and compassion are silenced, we are all less safe. The Supreme Court has ruled that context matters when deciding whether Free Speech applies. If the Free Speech causes harm - for example shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - then it can be infringed upon. This led to a ruling that it is acceptable for a president to infringe on the rights of the United States populace by arresting those who disseminate information that might hurt a war effort. Should those same documents be published during peacetime, the president would not have the ability to sign an executive order to restrict them. There is a major problem with this ruling: dissent against civil rights infringement does not go away when the infringement goes away, but is often only shown when the infringement is present. In other words, people often only complain when there is something to complain about. They may feel strongly against an action, but do not say so unless that action occurs.

If the president, when called upon to do something, just does something to appease the masses, then that thing is not necessarily good. To quote the old saying, "Haste makes waste." If in acting hastily, the president does not do the right thing, then the action may be worse than if nothing was done in the first place. For damage done in one day or one week can take decades to remedy - America is still apologizing to the Japanese-Americans sent to internment camps during World War II.

Another possible perspective with which actions of United States presidents can be examined is the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is, simply, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." People who truly follow this maxim would never violate or take away another person's rights, as they would not want their rights infringed upon. These people would argue that by taking someone else's rights away, for whatever reason, the President should also lose his rights. Thus the President cannot justify his actions through the Golden Rule.

The categorical imperative is somewhat related to the Golden Rule. The categorical imperative states that a law or action must be able to be universally applied to everyone. As these military and executive orders only apply to suspected terrorists, then the orders are not just and should be abolished. Also, the categorical imperative states that the ends do not justify the means. Therefore hurting a few to procure the safety of the many is not justifiable.

Immanuel Kant, who developed the theory of utilitarianism, would say that the infringement of civil rights is acceptable as long as it is in the public's best interest. If, by infringing on the rights of the accused, the few, we are protecting the lives and well being of the public, the many, then the infringement is justified. From this perspective, a person is justified in any action as long as more people are saved than harmed.

The rights afforded to the populace of the United States are protected with the presumption that they are more important than safety. To have a completely safe society, all civil liberties and rights would have to be revoked and everyone put in solitary confinement. This might make it so that no one would ever be harmed again, but people do not want to live like that. Our forefathers fought and died for our civil rights, and having them taken away from one person is not the greatest good for anyone.

Closely related to the idea of utilitarian perspective is the theory of consequentialism, which can be simply defined as "the end justifies the means." This means that the path one takes to get somewhere does not matter as long as the end is correct. From this perspective, it does not matter that civil rights and liberties are taken away, as long as people are kept safe.

The same argument as the one against utilitarianism also applies here. The best means to the end goal of safety is to strip everyone of their rights and place them in solitary confinement. As stated before, not many citizens would accept this idea.

Another argument against the consequentialist perspective is that the end, keeping the populace safe, has not been shown to actually happen. One may say that dancing a jig will make water boil in twelve minutes, but the water will boil in twelve minutes anyway ¾ the dancing has no effect on the time it takes to boil water. In the arena of safety and civil rights, it is not proven that the restriction on civil rights has any effect on the safety of the populace ¾ the populace may have been safe without the restrictions. In fact, airport security screening, a restriction meant to stop hijackings, actually did nothing to prevent the September 11^th tragedies. In the end, the only proven event is the loss of civil liberties and rights, showing that the actual demonstrated end ¾ loss of civil liberties and civil rights ¾ does not justify the means.

Conclusion

The premise that infringement of civil rights makes a population safer has not been shown to be true. It can be shown that for the portion of the populace who are the victims of the loss of civil rights, their safety is adversely affected. Even if safety for the majority was increased, it cannot justify the infringements upon hard won American rights and freedoms. After an examination of each of the philosophical viewpoints from which a president can justify his decision to infringe civil rights, none of these viewpoints can serve as a plausible justification for that decision. Therefore, those infringements should not be made, and if made, should be quickly reversed through presidential, legislative, or judicial action.