A little food for thought during this war on terror, as we debate Presidential power and its potential infringement on our civil liberties.
"The Constitution is not, in its application, in all respects the same, in case of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety, as it is in time of profound peace and public security. The constitution itself makes the distinction; and I can no more be persuaded that the Government can take no strong measure in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not be lawfully taken in time of peace, than I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown not to be good food for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the Rebellion, lose the right of Public Discussion, the Liberty of Speech and the Press, the Law of Evidence, Trial by jury and Habeas Corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future, which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strange an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life."
-----Abraham Lincoln, on his claimed right to suspend Habeas Corpus during the Civil War
"No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of the Constitution's provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence."
-----The Supreme Court in response to Lincoln
"Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
-----Lincoln's response to the Supreme Court
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I need this explained.
There's not really a conclusion here. Just something to think about. Bush and Ashcroft have violated some basic human rights laws by wrongfully imprisoning and detaining people in the name of preserving the security of the US. Some say this is justified because we are at war and we don't have time to undertake the adversarial judicial due process, and we can't afford to let potential terrorists slip through our fingers. Others say that we should never violate human rights laws to protect the security of the nation because that always leads to wider abuses and the ultimate dissolution of democracy. In these quotes, Lincoln is arguing for something similar to Bush/Ashcroft, and the Supreme Court is arguing for something similar to the civil libertarians of our day. It's an interesting debate. The question really hinges on what kind of threat you think Terrorism is. Lincoln was obviously dealing with a much more imminent and dangerous threat to the security of the nation. . .hence his rebuttle to the Supreme Court when they challenged him. So where do you come down? Illegally detain to protect or never illegally detain and risk attack?
Thank you Chris.
My non-analytical brain needs help. :)
"I got up off my hands and knees
to thank my lucky stars that you're not me."
Post a Comment