Is it right for the government to take away your civil rights for the sake national security?

Answer 1

Yes, but not permanently. When the danger is passed then your civil rights should be given back to you.

Marcy

AnswerOK, but let's say that if we do allow the government to restrict our civil Rights, then would it not be giving too much power? For instance the *Patriot Act allow officials to wiretap your house without you knowing it all because you are suspected of being a terrorist, but yet your not. Then also they can arrest you without a warrant if they suspect of being a terrorist. the list goes on and on.. so what do y'all think about this? Is this giving government officials too much power which they could abuse?

• from the Federalist Patriot website:"In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the New York City World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Congress, at the urging of the Bush administration, overwhelmingly passed legislation known as the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. The act, standing for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," was primarily intended to provide law enforcement agencies with a legally-defined mandate to preempt and respond to real and potential terrorist threats against the United States".

AnswerI am not a lawyer, but my opinion is that no government should be able to wire tap an individuals house unless they have high suspicions of terrorists acts, nor should they ram your door in at any given moment without a warrant. I have heard that SWAT Teams in even Canada have rammed in the wrong door (got the wrong address). The person can turn around and nail them with a Civil suit.

It's highly doubtful that the government will go around knocking in public doors to their homes. If someone makes a complaint against a citizen such as "I see people going in and out at all hours with equipment, large boxes, etc." then the police have a right to enter your home with a warrant.

I don't trust our own government and I know the U.S. is even worse because of terrorism, so I do agree that it could give them too much power which could be badly misused.

Answer:The answer is, Yes they can. And they have. Clearly, some examples are called for, so here they are:

PATRIOT Act Most of the PATRIOT Act passed sunset and is now in law until it's reversed. Among many other things, the PATRIOT Act allows for the following:

• Wiretaps and monitoring without a warrant, judicial oversight, or suspicion of any crime. All that has to be presented is an Administrative Letter from any agency that can declare they have anything whatsoever to do with national security, and there has to be a "sincere belief" that this act is in the interests of national security. There is no need to reveal what caused this sincere belief. A civil suit is impossible, as you cannot subpeona information held in the interests of natioanl security, nor can you even determine the level of classification. Wise readers will note that the US Senate as a body has tried and failed to get this sort of information.
• If you are suspected of terrorism (without a legal determination of the term Terrorism I might add), you may be detained without due process or legal representation until a miltary tribunal sees fit to review your case.
• You may be transported out of the country, and into another forgiegn country, and held there under that country's laws, again without representation or access to counsel and without due process, if there is reasonable cause to believe you have a direct or indirect invovlement with a terrorist organization.

FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Passed in the 1970's this law was pretty harmless until 9/11, when its scope was drastically expanded. Under FISA, you may be surveilled and investigated if you have percevied or potential contact with anyone who may be a foreign agent. While this sounds pretty safe, the number of foreigners or even people with foreign names, who are suspected of foreign intelligence invovlement far exceeds the number of people who actually are. This, in addition to the problem of name tracking, where, for reasons far to obvious to detail, real intelligence operatives try hard not to be identified by name.

TIA (Total Information Act). Started under Presidential fiat, this act was de-funded in legislature. But, in the words of the NSA, "the program was disassembled, but all the parts are retained". Budgeting for what was TIA was moved into the "black budget" which isn't openly reported to the legislature and there is questionable if any oversight. This omnibus act deals with the old FBI "Carnivore" program, which monitors email traffic (and presumably instant messaging), the old TIA structure, which combines credit and bank reporting, customer service reporting (selections of items purchased), and even elements as far distant as traffic location reporting and cell phone use (both location and communications). At this point in time, the scope of this project is unknown to the public. However, for a taste of what you're looking at, check out the private sector data mining operation Axcoim, who sells information to the Federal and State Govts. -- it's amazing what information is tracked. Some say this exceeds the 4th Amendment expectation of privacy and right to search only by due process.

And of course there are other Acts.

There is no indication that any of these bills will be repealed, and most (excepting TIA) have long passed their sunset and are now fully in law.

I should close by saying that none of these measures has produced visible results in terms of interdicting terrorism.

AnswerNo, they cannot. It is un-constitutional. The Constitution is referred to as the Supreme Law of the Land. If you were to draw a pyramid, and put 4 lines on it, then put Constitution on the top, Federal below it, State below it, and Local on the bottom, it is showing that NO law or NO government can gain higher power (in other words, go against) the Constitution of the United States. It says so in our Declaration as well. Rebuttal:While you say, "No, they cannot", I think you speak a little after the fact, in that many of the rights given under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights already HAVE been abrogated. You may argue that this is illegal, and I would join you in that argument, but it won't change the fact that these rights are already gone. Update, Oct, 2011As of this writing, ALL of the above laws that removed civil and Constitutional rights are still in place or have expanded in scope. There is no indication that any of our abrogated rights are scheduled to be restored in the foreseeable future.

Answer 2

In times of extreme crisis, the civil rights in a county's constitution can be suspended. This was done by President Lincoln during the US Civil War.