Should Government Restrict Civil Liberties

Whether it is acceptable for the government to restrict any of our civil liberties during times of war, is of great concern and consideration. This essay argues that sacrificing some civil liberties occasionally to keep peace, defend our nation, and silence opposition, is reasonable. Our nation has already been through times where civil liberties have been muted in order to maintain their governmental influence. With the help of outside sources, the argument for limitation of civil liberties is made compelling and engaging.

Without civil liberties, America would be empty. This type of dystopian nation would compromise simple American values that the people take for granted. They are the guarantees to each individual, granting them protections against government actions, not to be mistaken for civil rights, which are the legal actions taken by the government to create equal conditions for every individual. While it is arguable whether all civil liberties should be protected by the United States, there are exceptions likewise. In any event, while

civil liberties are essential to our American political system, it is also acceptable and in some cases essential to disregard some of these civil liberties, in order to maintain peace, defend, and silence opposition.
There are many different influential voices and opinions centered on civil liberties and what they stand for. The biggest question many ask or address, are specifically which civil liberties should the United States, in all situations, protect. While the list, included in the Bill of Rights, is lengthy, consisting of freedom of speech, privacy, religion, right to a fair court trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to marry, right to trial by jury, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, right to vote, and a handful more, they are all intended to be protected, and should be protected unless America is facing extreme circumstances, that I would only include as wartime. Whether or not some civil liberties require protection or not, is rather opinionated. I personally believe that more government does not mean less freedom, and therefore I believe that it is acceptable for civil liberties to be taken away during wartime, for the greater good.
In reason, the government should have the capability to do whatever they believe will keep America peaceful.

Alexander Hamilton once claimed, “liberty and power are not always adversaries, that indeed, the “vigor” of government is essential to the security of liberty” (Owens, “Civil Liberties in Wartimes”). President Lincoln acted in accordance with Hamilton’s claim. During the civil war, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, meaning, “individuals could be arrested and held without formal charges being lodged against them” (Moyers, “Civil Liberties in Wartimes”). In example, this was a suspension of the civil liberties of freedom of speech and press in wartime. His actions are justified, but there are many that believe his actions were wrong. On the other hand, in this case of civil war, the public required the suspension of this civil liberty in order to maintain peace, against dangers of invasion and

rebellion.
Fast forwarding in history from the time of civil war to 2011, suggests that government still acts to protect the greater good. After the devastating incident on 9/11, the government did what they, and the severely traumatized people of America, believed necessary to defend America from anything comparable happening in the future. With the massive upgrade in airport security, Americans lose their civil liberties for the safety and defense of the nation. It is noteworthy that “full-body scans violate religious liberties as they require people remove their head-coverings and Muslim women must wear those at all times in public” (KTVB, “ACLU claims…). However people’s liberty of privacy is lost for a mere two to three minutes for the safety of the entire country.
Soon approaching our nation is another attack on our civil liberties. President Obama is soon going to announce a new gun control that may infringe on the right to bear arms. His proposal is in defense to the many recent cases of gun shootings around the nation that have caused the death of a great number of innocent citizens. It may be time for us to ask, “How many lives is the right to bear arms worth?” (Ojaha, “How many lives…”) in regards to those people who might argue that our nation isn’t even in a time of war. Even after entry into World War I, many Americans became confident enough to speak out against the government for going to war. In this scenario, America chose to silence the opposition by once again infringing on the American people’s civil liberties of right to free speech. To keep their power, “restrictive laws such as the espionage and sedition acts were passed in order to silence opposition” (Bill, “To What Extent…). With the occurrence of a great national emergency, the government had no choice but to pass the act, to protect the nation’s secrets, and protect the country from harm.
For the most part, the United States should be able to restrict any civil liberties they find necessary at a time of catastrophe. The people at the top are there for a reason. Besides the restrictions on the civil liberties already mentioned, there are many other examples in our history. Furthermore, going forward our nation’s administration should have the final say in keeping the American people safe.