onur_S
17-12-2011, 09:40
arkadaslar su cümleleri bana düzgünce cevirebilecek birisinin forumda olduğunu biliyorum,ödev yetiştirmem gerekiyor ben bi yere kadar çevirebildim sonrası karıştı maalesef.
Erosion of citizens' rights during World War II were upheld in the United States Supreme Court case Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), which held that the application of curfews against members of a minority group were constitutional when the nation was at war with the country from which that group originated. Yasui v. United States was a companion case decided the same day.
In more modern usage, it has become a watchword about the erosion of civil liberties during wartime. In the immediate wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the maxim was aired and questioned in the American media with renewed force. The implication of the saying, as currently used, is in debate whether civil liberties and freedoms are in fact subservient to a wartime nation's duty of self-defense.
In 1998 Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime suggested that "the least justified of the curtailments of civil liberty" were unlikely to be accepted by the courts in wars of the future. "It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peacetime. But it is both desirable and likely that more careful attention will be paid by the courts to the basis for the government's claims of necessity as a basis for curtailing civil liberty," the chief justice wrote. "The laws will thus not be silent in time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice."
An episode of The Practice (6th season, episode 111, aired 9 December 2001) bearing the title "Inter Arma Silent Leges" examined this political concept in the context of the imprisonment of an Arab-American immigrant, three months after the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001.
Erosion of citizens' rights during World War II were upheld in the United States Supreme Court case Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), which held that the application of curfews against members of a minority group were constitutional when the nation was at war with the country from which that group originated. Yasui v. United States was a companion case decided the same day.
In more modern usage, it has become a watchword about the erosion of civil liberties during wartime. In the immediate wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the maxim was aired and questioned in the American media with renewed force. The implication of the saying, as currently used, is in debate whether civil liberties and freedoms are in fact subservient to a wartime nation's duty of self-defense.
In 1998 Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime suggested that "the least justified of the curtailments of civil liberty" were unlikely to be accepted by the courts in wars of the future. "It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peacetime. But it is both desirable and likely that more careful attention will be paid by the courts to the basis for the government's claims of necessity as a basis for curtailing civil liberty," the chief justice wrote. "The laws will thus not be silent in time of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice."
An episode of The Practice (6th season, episode 111, aired 9 December 2001) bearing the title "Inter Arma Silent Leges" examined this political concept in the context of the imprisonment of an Arab-American immigrant, three months after the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001.