Internment, Civil Liberties, and a Nation in Crisis
![handle is hein.journals/scid13 and id is 175 raw text is: INTERNMENT, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND A
NATION IN CRISIS
NATHAN WATANABE*
I. INTRODUCTION
Historically, the United States has possessed a keen awareness of the
precarious position civil liberties occupy in the government's pursuit of a
nobler end. As inscribed on the Statute of Liberty, Benjamin Franklin
notes, They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' In 1928, Justice Louis Brandeis
dissented against the Court's decision to uphold the police's use of
evidence obtained by wire-tapping: Experience should teach us to be
most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are
beneficent.,2 Pondering the country's response to the tragic terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush recently
reiterated these sentiments, declaring, we will not allow this enemy to win
the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.3 Though
the government has acknowledged the need to delicately handle our
crystalline civil liberties, its response to terrorism has ostensibly jostled the
fragile package. Recent executive orders and the enactment of the Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (Patriot Act) expand the scope of the
government's powers in fighting terrorism by streamlining government
operations, increasing surveillance capabilities, and providing preventative
anti-terrorism measures . In spite of the Bush Administration's good
intentions, these laws have spawned a wave of critiques and editorials
attacking their constitutionality as well as their necessity.5 Of particular
J.D. Candidate, University of Southern California Law School, May 2004; B.A., Stanford
University, 2001. 1 am in debt to Professor Frenzen for his advice and perspective, thank you very
much. And of course, thanks to my family and Grace for listening to my ranting while writing this
article.
' JOHN BARTLETT, JOHN BARTLETT'S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS 320 (Justin Kaplan ed., Little,
Brown and Company 17th ed. 2002),
2 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
3 Press Release, The White House, Remarks by the President in Photo Opportunity with the
National Security Team, (Sept. 12, 2001), available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010912-4.html.
4 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism Act of200l, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001) [hereinafter PatriotAct].
' See generally John H. Whitehead & Steven H. Aden, Forfeiting Enduring Freedom for
Homeland Security : A Constitutional Analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice Department's
Anti-terrorism Initiatives, 51 AM. U. L. REv. 1081 (2002) (discussing selected provisions of the Act that
have potentially negative impacts on constitutionally protected rights). See also John Seiler,
EDITORIAL, Preserving our freedoms Series, ORANGE COUNTY REQ. (Cal.), Mar. 21, 2003, available at](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/scid13&div=10&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Internment, Civil Liberties, and a Nation in Crisis
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most