Hide Article Text (OCR)
Our ViewpointThings often seen differently with perspective of timen times of war and national crisis — such as we've experienced since the terrorist attacks last year the United States understandably has acted to protect itself against attack from within our borders. Congress and presidents have done what seemed necessary at the time to safeguard the American people. Unfortunately, this lias often resulted in restricting civil liberties of citizens who were not accused of any crime, denying them the basic due process of our justice system. The most well-known of these episodes was the internment of Japanese-Amerieans during World War II, but the practice has a tradition going back to the beginnings of our country.In 1798. in response to a perceived threat of war with France, Congress passed a series of laws intended to weed out undesirables from the country.Collectively known as the “Alien and Sedition Acts,” the laws provided stiff penalties for those found to beat odds w ith the government. The Sedition Act forbade Americans to “write, print, utter or publish ... any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States,” including Congress and the president, with the intent “to defame or bring any of these “into contempt or disrepute.”Although we support laws against defamation, the Sedition Act outlawed the kind of healthy debate that is vital to .1 republic such as ours. People must be free to criticize the government and hold officials accountable for their actions. If we lose that freedom, the remainder of our liberty will not likely be far behind. Thankfully, the law had a sunset date in 1801; otherwise we, and many contributors to these pages would often run afoul of it.During World War II. Japanese-Americans found their rights severely curtailed by the federal government. I heir property w as seized, they faced travel restrictions and many, especially in coastal areas, were rounded up and sent to internment camps. Several fought the new restrictions in front of the I S. Supreme Court. Cases early in the war were, unfortunately, decided in favor of the government. However, cases heard by the court after the tide of the war had turned in favor of the Allies, were decided lot the plaintiffs. The court's reasoning during different phases o! the war was that exceptional timescalled lor exceptional measures, but that when danger ol invasion was lessened, rights were restored to theirformer preeminence.I his is important to remember in this war on terrorism. I hose instances in our history that have seen the abrogation ol rights in the name of security, while seeming critical at the time, are seen differently with the perspective ol time. Later observers often perceive the restrictions as overreactions on the part of the government The federal government, especially the Justice Department, should keep this in mind as itgoes about prosecuting this new war and trying to prevent future terrorist attacks. In protecting our country, we must be caretul not to destroy the very thing that makes us different from the rest of the world - our respect for the rights of the individual.
Newspaper Details
Clovis News Journal
Clovis, New Mexico, US
Thu, Sep 12, 2002
Page 4
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
USA 25 Aug 2019
Other Publications Near Clovis, New Mexico
The Clovis News
The Eastern New Mexico News
Clovis Evening News Journal
Clovis News Tribune
Clovis New Mexico Evening News Journal
