Kevin Bridges

The United States of America is a country founded on the highest moral principles. Foremost among these principles are the equality of all men, and the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In fact, the founders of this great country placed such a high value on individual freedom, that the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the amendment guaranteeing these individual liberties (Roark A-13). The Fourth Amendment expands upon the liberties set forth in the First Amendment by stating that the government cannot search or seize any person without probable cause (A-13). Throughout American history, however, there have been certain instances in which the American Government has suppressed these individual liberties in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. By analyzing these instances, it becomes apparent that not only does limiting personal liberties hamper beneficial change within the government, but promoting individual liberties including free speech, even if that speech is derogatory in nature, actually strengthens the foundation of the government.

History provides its first example of the power of American individual liberty and free speech at the moment of the United States’ birth. Religious persecution in England prevented Puritans from criticizing or attempting to change any aspect of the English church ─ also Puritan ─ under penalty of death. Unable to voice their convictions, worship as they saw appropriate, or initiate change, the Puritans committed the ultimate act of rebellion: they abandoned their country and started their own country. Ultimately, religious wars ravaged England and Europe. This is, of course, a severe example of what can happen when governments impede individual liberties. There are many other less drastic examples of how oppressing individual liberty and freedom of speech negatively affects government (Roark 515-554).

The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in our country’s early years during the presidency of John Adams is one of these examples. The Alien component of this 1798 act allowed the deportation of immigrants whose home countries were at war with the United States, or whom the President deemed a threat. It also extended the minimum residency requirement for immigrants from five to fourteen years. The sedition component made it illegal to “combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government” or to “write, print, utter or publish ... scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States” (Gragg 33).

Congress promptly signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, initiating a series of prosecutions that centered on outspoken journalists and public speakers. Among those immediately convicted of exciting sedition were newspaper editors Benjamin Bache of the Philadelphia-based Aurora and John Daly Burk of the New York based Time Piece. The U.S. Government prosecuted American journalists of the time, including William Duane, Thomas Cooper, Charles Holt, and James Callender, as well as vocally outspoken individuals such as David Brown, for communicating their views of the government to the public. Thomas Jefferson, the leader of the Republican Party at the time, summarized the effect of these laws, when he admitted he feared to write what he thought (33). As president, Thomas Jefferson ultimately repealed the Sedition Acts in 1800 due to their violations of First Amendment rights.

The Alien and Sedition laws had the opposite effect for the Federalists Party than the intended one. Instead of silencing dissent, the prosecution of journalists and editors lead to a sharp rise in periodicals similar to the ones published by the convicted editors and journalists. The Acts caused voter anger that lead to a swing in power from the Federalist-controlled government to a Republican majority. Public dissatisfaction with Federalist policy became apparent in the polls as the Federalists lost forty seats in Congress giving the Republicans sixty-six seats over the Federalists’ remaining forty seats. Mark Lyon, a target of the sedition portion of the bill, even ran for office from his jail cell and won easily because of the dissatisfaction these Acts created.

In his editorial “How the Lost Cause Was Lost,” Henry Steele Commager, provides an interesting discussion demonstrating the disastrous outcome for the South when Southerners lost their freedom of speech (Commager). Commager explains how slavery was the very foundation of the South, and for many years Southerners had rallied to defend the institution of slavery. The South’s defense of slavery was so intense, that Southerners began to view slavery not as a necessary evil, but as an institution that was actually good for both the whites and the slaves. When the Civil War began, a Southerner who dared speak out against slavery was considered an enemy of the confederacy. In the South during the Civil War, preachers who spoke against slavery often found their churches burned, towns fired teachers from their jobs if they taught the negatives associated with slavery, and local governments destroyed the printing presses of editorials condemning slavery.

Commager believes that when a government prevents its citizens from discussing the very issues that are most important to them, people stop discussing all issues. He points out that if a government silences all of its critics, then the only people left to speak are the non critics. When this happens, a government assures only approval, thwarts the process of critical inquiry, and encourages complacency. Commager further points out that during the years immediately preceding the Civil War and during the war itself, Southern political debate died due to the lack of free speech. As a result, Southern political and military leadership also failed to thrive, and eventually died also, and Southerners were unable to progress beyond the absurd belief that slavery was a viable, and even desirable, institution (Commager; Roark 515-554).

In spite of the severe consequences associated with restricted freedoms, America had not learned her lessons before the start of World War II. During this war, Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted a bill to severely limit individual liberty, and ended up causing great harm to both American citizens and the government. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 into law in response to the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. The bill allowed the Secretary of War and his Military Commanders to section off areas of the country and prevent specific people from entering those areas. The government enforced this restriction predominantly in the western portions of the United States of America and targeted primarily people of Japanese heritage. The order created internment camps in which the government held more than 120,000 Japanese-Americans for the duration of World War II to combat fear of organization and attack against the United States from within.

The World War II hysteria, shock and fear generated by the attack against Pearl Harbor allowed for the rapid adoption of Executive Order 9066, with little consideration for the civil liberties of those affected. The government forced Japanese-Americans from their homes and allowed them to take only what they could carry. The United States government froze their assets and seized their property, resulting in significant financial loss and hardship. Military commanders administered internment at their discretion, resulting in sentences of up to 3 years ─ the duration of World War II.

The United States Government expected Executive Order 9066 to save American lives by circumventing an imminent Japanese attack; the attack never occurred. This Act was such a flagrant violation of civil liberty that it lead to a formal apology and redress by the United States Government in the form of $20,000 to each of the interned, and the creation of the Civil Liberties Act. The War Relocation Authority, in a pamphlet evaluating the validity of the bill, had this to say:

The residents of the relocation centers … have never been found guilty ─ either individually or collectively — of any such acts or intentions. They are merely a group of American residents who happen to have Japanese ancestors and who happened to be living in a potential combat zone shortly after the outbreak of war. All evidence available to the War Relocation Authority indicates that the great majority of them are completely loyal to the United States (Lakeside 203).

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is similar to both the Alien and Sedition Acts and Executive Order 9066. Like the previous bills, the act works to address a direct threat against the United States of America. Similar to the attacks against Pearl Harbor and the threat of French war, the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 against New York City sparked a backlash against suspected terrorists. The United States holds thousands of detainees around the globe in a fashion that resembles the hardships endured by the Japanese-Americans during execution of Executive Order 9066. The President has the right to declare anyone an enemy combatant under this law, causing the same type of alarm as the Alien and Sedition Acts. In addition to the previous bills, it eliminates protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions, allowing the use of torture to extract information used in the prosecution of detainees.

The Military Commissions Act is already generating repercussions similar to its historic predecessors. Much like the Sedition Acts, public dissatisfaction with the ruling has helped swing recent elections away from the Republican Party (not the same Republicans of John Adams time) toward a Democratic controlled Senate at a crucial time in the presidency. This act exceeds the violations of the previous acts by absolving “C.I.A. agents of any legal responsibility for their actions so he [George W. Bush] could order them to go on interrogating prisoners” (Day). Previous administrations realized a substantial public outcry, but none of the previous laws went as far as endorsing the use of torture to extract information from suspected enemy combatants. The Geneva Convention forbids the use of torture against enemy combatants. The Military Commissions Act, clearly violating civil and possibly human rights, removes these conventions from consideration.

The intent of the Military Commissions Act is to save American lives. However, history proves that the suspension of civil liberties under threat of war does not serve its intended purpose. The words of George Bush (the father of George W. Bush), as written on the letter accompanying the redress checks to the Japanese-Americans affected by Executive Order 9066, serve as a stark reminder of the neglected lesson:

A monetary sum and words alone cannot restore lost years or erase painful memories; neither can they fully convey our Nation's resolve to rectify injustice and to uphold the rights of individuals. We can never fully right the wrongs of the past. But we can take a clear stand for justice and recognize that serious injustices were done to Japanese Americans during World War II. (17)

It seems these words are falling on deaf ears as the current administration passes legislation to absolve itself from prosecution against these civil liberty atrocities.

Throughout American history, bills similar to the Military Commissions Act have failed miserably, as demonstrated by the Alien and Sedition Act, the Civil War, and Executive Order 9066. It is naïve to believe that the Military Commissions Act, or any future attempts to limit personal liberties, will benefit the United States Government. These actions to limit freedom are hazardous to the very foundation of the United States of America and to the constitutional rights and liberties of its citizens. No matter how great the perceived threat, no matter how vicious the verbal attacks, we must stand firm on the tried and proven principles of freedom for all ─ or the United States will perish; history does not lie.

• Commager, Henry S. “How ‘the Lost Cause’ Was Lost” New York Times, Aug. 4, 1963.
• Day, Nancy. “Wartime Mistakes, Peacetime Apologies.” Cobblestone 17.4 (1996): 17. History Reference Center. EBSCOHost. Seminole Community College Library. 26 Nov., 2006.
• Gragg, Larry. “Order vs. Liberty.” American History. 33.4 (1998): 24. History Reference Center. EBSCOHost. Seminole Community College Library. 26 Nov., 2006.
• Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC. “Japanese American Internment.” Flash Focus: Equal Rights Under Law. (2005): 203-204. History Reference Center. EBSCOHost. Seminole Community College Library. 26 Nov., 2006.
• Roark, James L. et al. The American Promise: A History of the United States 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2005.

Here is a followup A Judicial Victory for the Leader