Liberty in Times of War

Liberty in Times of War

Civil liberties are curtailed during wars. In the recent past during the 9/11 attack American and non-American citizens' civil liberties were infringed. Civil liberties are eroded whenever emergency power is exercised. During war government authorities tend to withhold information. Documents are over-classified and information withheld from the Congress and the general public (Fisher, 2003). After the 9/11 attack President Bush released a memo that limit the disclosure of classified and sensitive law enforcement information. This decision was later reversed on October 5, 2001 (Fisher, 2003). Law enforcement information was later restricted to 8 members of the Congress namely: House Speaker, House Minority Leader, the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders and the chairs and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees. When Bush Administration was about to go into Iraq, Bush declassified satellite photos and released them to the press (Fisher, 2003). The position that the Bush Administration took with regard to interpreting and administering the Freedom of Information Act (FOLA) showed their intention towards withholding information. The AG John Ashcroft issued a guideline to agency heads reminding them of the need to consider sensitive business data and personal privacy as well as national security and law enforcement before releasing documents to the public (Fisher, 2003). The AG promised to defend agencies decision to withhold records unless they lacked a sound legal basis. This was an invitation to the agencies to limit public access. The House Government Reform Committee included a line in the Citizens Guide that allowed for withholding information (Fisher, 2003).

In times of war free speech is always limited. The Bush Administration after the 9/11 attack acted unilaterally without constitutional checks and balances. Attorney General Ashcroft before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 6, 2001, bluntly warned that criticism of the Bush Administration works in the advantage of the terrorists (Fisher, 2003). He discouraged people from fear-mongering and pitting Americans against immigrants and citizens against non-citizens. He attributed free speech to tactics that aid terrorist activities. It is very difficult to ascertain how much the quest for national unity discourages public debate and the individual voice. It was lost to him that the executive branch of the government cannot claim monopoly on wisdom (Fisher, 2003). During Senate Judiciary hearings the AG averred that the president's authority to establish military tribunals is anchored on the fact that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Military tribulations are therefore created at the whims of the president and the Congress cannot limit that limitary when the legal and historical records show others (Fisher, 2003). Creation of military tribunal is a joint initiative of the president and the Congress. The Supreme Court gives the Congress the constitutional authority to create tribunals. In this context the AG was spreading misinformation. War against terrorism does not justify the weakening of constitutional rights of free speech and press (Fisher, 2003). Free speech and public debate should be encouraged during war. During WWI one Zechariah Chafee, Jr., convinced Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., that the war clauses of the constitution should not override the freedom of speech (Fisher, 2001). Ashcroft released new guidelines that permitted FBI agents to conduct domestic surveillance of public events like political rallies and religious gatherings. This loosened 1976 guidelines that prevented FBI from spying on domestic groups (Fisher, 2003). When the media asked President Bush whether these developments implied that citizens would loose certain freedoms he replied that his administration intended to honor the constitution and respect the freedoms so dear to the Americans.

After the 9/11 attack President Bush issued military order that created military tribunal that was used to try terrorist suspects. They never consulted with experts in the Judge Advocate General citing the Ex-parte Quirin that set solid legal precedent for doing such actions (Fisher, 2001). This tribunal targeted non-citizens and resident aliens. The problem is how do you know a terrorist or a terrorist organization (Fisher, 2003)? Does the president merely announce the result and force the target to mount a defense? Designation of foreign terrorist organizations is done without notice to these organizations. Designation is done on the basis of classified information (Fisher, 2003).