There have always been conflicts between individual rights and national security interests in democracies. Limits on civil liberties during wartime, including restrictions on free speech, public assembly, and mass detentions, have been the most serious threats to individual freedom. Even in peacetime, counter-terrorist measures including profiling, detention, and exclusion, along with the use of national identification cards, have raised concerns about racism, constitutional violations, and the loss of privacy. With the passage of new anti-terrorist laws after September 11, 2001, these tensions have increased. Supporters of broader governmental powers insist that they are part of the increased security measures necessary to safeguard national security. In contrast, many civil rights groups fear that the infringement upon individual rights is another step in the erosion of democratic civil society.
Wartime measures. The severest restrictions on civil liberties have occurred in times of war. In September 1862, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) suspended the right of habeas corpus in order to allow federal authorities to arrest and detain suspected Confederate sympathizers without arrest warrants or speedy trials. Well aware of the drastic nature of such a step, Lincoln justified it as a necessary wartime measure. After the United States Supreme Court found Lincoln's abrogation of habeas corpus an unconstitutional intrusion on Congressional authority, Congress itself ratified the measure by passing the Habeas Corpus Act in September 1863. Through 1864, about 14,000 people were arrested under the act; about one in seven were detained at length in federal prisons, most on allegations of offering aid to the Confederacy but others on corruption and fraud charges.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/espionage/In-Int/Intelligence-and-Democracy-Issues-and-Conflicts.html#ixzz4XX37pHRv
<span>Rationalism is a philosophical movement which gathered momentum during the Age of Reason of the 17th Century.</span>
Prior to the Civil War, the (dominant) discourse over the United States’ future reach a crisis point in that the divide grew between the North and the South over the status of slaves with the north favoring a more liberal view.
<h3>What were the arguments regarding the Constitutionality of slavery and notions of citizenship?</h3>
Throughout the mid-1800s, disagreements about the institution of slavery erupted, eventually leading to the Civil War: sociological reasons such as: whites being superior to blacks were presented.
The south contended that slaves were economically useful due to the steady work supply."
Hence the attrition.
<h3>How did relative definitions of liberty/freedom/equality become irreconcilable?</h3>
The relative definitions of liberty and freedom that became irreconcilable was when the notion of negative liberty was coined.
This notion was suggestive of the fact that:
Negative liberty is the freedom from outside intervention and that it is concerned largely with freedom from external restriction, as opposed to positive liberty (ownership of the capacity and resources to realize one's own potential).
Learn more about the civil war at;
brainly.com/question/1020924
#SPJ1
Here is the correct answer of the given question above. What would happen to the gondola if it became separated from envelope while the blimp was in flight is that gravity would bring it down. <span>Gondola will drop like any other jettisoned item. A blimp envelope will only remain inflated for an hour. Hope this answer helps you. </span>
Britain and France both had Indian colonies Britian had Africa and some parts of Singapore and so did France.
