This question has troubled humans since the Antiquity. Governments say yes, but citizens say no. At the end of the day, I believe that in wartime situations, certain civil liberties can be suppressed. The government has the duty to protect the well-being of all its citizens, and if the lives of millions are at stake, and the best chance at saving those lives are suppressing certain rights, than I feel the government is just in doing so.
But it is important that once the immediate danger is past, liberties are restored. And if the government cannot do that in a timely matter, they are failing as a government and should be abolished, and a new government should be established. As the book 1984 showed, by keeping people in perpetual fear, the government can quash all civil liberties.
if i knew the answer i wouldnt be looking for an answer
they were justified just as Javarius Jamar Javarsion-Lamar once said
They always have to. If Lincoln hadn't jailed the pro-Southern leaders in Maryland, that state would have voted Confederate, and Washington DC would have been totally enclosed within enemy states.
no its not they have nothing to do with it so why are they to blame
It decreased citizens rights
Yes.
The sale of government bonds was a source of wartime funds for the union.
Civil liberties were curtailed during times of national security threat, such as during wartime or periods of social unrest. Governments have implemented measures like surveillance, censorship, and restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and privacy. These curtailments have often been justified as necessary to protect the overall security and stability of the state.
me
OPA
The War Measures Act allowed the Canadian government to bypass certain legal rights and impose martial law during times of crisis, such as wartime. This led to increased government powers and restrictions on individual rights, sparking debates over civil liberties and the balance between security and freedom.
The department of defense.