National Security or Freedom?

Jlk311 · Feb 10, 2009

The Parakeet said:
Way to blow it out of proportion. There is one American I know of who was held without a speedy trial. It was that one guy who was arrested for terrorism and held in a brig in Virginia while the Supreme Court thought about it. They ultimately decided it was wrong.

Believe it or not, it's possible to have freedom and security if the population is aware and the government is responsible. Big ifs...but its the best thing we got.

Here is an idea find out why the terrorists are mad and reason with them and jail the ones that have already killed. Dont just torture non Americans till just just say some names so that theyll stop being tortured. Or catch suspected non Americas and lock them away for ever till the end of time which is waht bush and Cheney wanted to do.
These ppl arnt killing themselves just cuz we are free cuz they hate our freedom why do they care what we do we are half way around the world. Oh wait we arent and when we werent there we influenced the area massively. Almost all of the time our influences were against them. Why do Americans have to be less free cuz our politicians are to blind to what the terrorists are fighting for.
Unless that happens it doenst matter how much freedom they take from us to make us safe we will never be safe.

The Parakeet · Feb 10, 2009

Yay!!!! More hyperbole. That really helps your case. All counter-terrorism actions are preventative. Americans are not being rounded up and thrown into FEMA death camps. We switched administrations. (Obviously the only logical conclusion is a conspiracy to steal our freedom)

I like this old analogy. If a man comes into the ER in the middle of a heart attack, you don't calmly explain why he should have a better diet and lower his cholesterol. You stop the bloody heart attack and make him better. Then, once he's relatively safe, you explain what needs to be done to stop it from happening again. Pretty simple really.

Sparks · Mar 21, 2009

Just How Free?

We all have to give up freedoms under extreme circumstances. But there are those, who for our own good (supposedly) will want to continue to control our lives, have access to our private lives, and so on, for our own good, or so they will say.

I will have to disagree with MYP about never sacrificing privacy or freedom. Lincoln sure did during the Civil War, deciding that saving the country was more important that following the constitution. Things done during WWII followed on that lines, whether necessary or not.

Many things that in hindsight are terrible, seem necessary at the time. And other times, you wonder why they didn't do what was obviously required.

The loss of freedom, short term, is something I can live with, but when it becomes institutionalized, continuing until it becomes the norm, I have a serious problem with it. Parakeet's analogy is worthwhile, if they ever let the us out of the emergency ward. There are many that would prefer to keep us there and under their thumb perpetually.

curious · Mar 21, 2009

I think you can sacrifice so much freedom to be 'safe' that the country you were trying to protect essentially no longer exists. Safety is relative, and you really can't protect people against everything.

Someone posted earlier that a warrant is required for the government to look at your phone records. That is no longer true. In the interest of national security, Homeland Security can pretty much look at and listen to anything they want. And if local police can find any way to somehow imply that you might be linked to terrorism (like you ate lunch at McDonalds and a suspciious person sat next to you), they don't need warrants anymore either.

We are spending a lot of time and money to protect against events that are most linkely unpreventable, and hardly worrying about real threats, like North Korea.

Quintessence · Mar 22, 2009

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin

The Parakeet · Mar 23, 2009

It's also important to actually recognize what is an actual invasion of privacy.

Walking through a metal detector and having my laptop bag searched isn't an invasion of privacy. I'm not worried until cavity searches become routine.

It's kinda sad to see so many people sure that we're falling into a police state because the government has a little more power (that they've always had actually). Then again...it's that mentality that makes it hard for it to ever happen for real.

deanhills · Mar 23, 2009

The Parakeet said:
It's also important to actually recognize what is an actual invasion of privacy.

Walking through a metal detector and having my laptop bag searched isn't an invasion of privacy. I'm not worried until cavity searches become routine.

It's kinda sad to see so many people sure that we're falling into a police state because the government has a little more power (that they've always had actually). Then again...it's that mentality that makes it hard for it to ever happen for real.

Am curious Parakeet. What would you regard as "invasion" of privacy?

myp · Mar 23, 2009

Quintessence said:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin

Great quotation, and one that a lot of people really should consider currently, especially after the passing of the Patriot Act and similar legislation. Even with the bailouts and government intervention in the markets, we are losing liberties for what the government claims is necessary, just like they did with things like the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

deanhills · Mar 24, 2009

myp said:
Great quotation, and one that a lot of people really should consider currently, especially after the passing of the Patriot Act and similar legislation. Even with the bailouts and government intervention in the markets, we are losing liberties for what the government claims is necessary, just like they did with things like the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

It also grabbed my attention yesterday when I first read it. Awesome quotation. I think in this day and age of electronics, it has also become much easier for people to give up their security without even realizing they are doing it.

The Parakeet · Mar 24, 2009

The way I see it is that there are very few things currently going on that are "invasions". Saying that they are kinda trivializes the idea of an invasion of privacy. Like I said, as long as we don't have routine cavity searches, active phone monitoring without a reason, or thought crimes, then we're good.

The Patriot Act didn't really do much to add to their ability. They could already do a lot of the stuff without a warrant (as long as they could justify it later to the relevant court). The Patriot Act was a PR stunt that blew up in their face. The only tangible thing I heard of was that they could look at what you checked out, which sorta falls under the "man with nothing to hide hides nothing."

curious · Mar 25, 2009

I just read that the Supreme Court will be ruling on a case involving a school performing a strip search of a young teenage girl because someone said she might have prescription strength ibuprofen. Apparently ibuprofen (Advil) is considered a dangerous drug these days.

So I think we are there, guys.

The Parakeet · Mar 25, 2009

Except they still have the right to sue

(and I hope that they do if that story is true). That's the American way.

Plus there's some stuff I could say about due process and the slow path to correct problems, but it's late and I'm tired.

GekiDan · Mar 25, 2009

curious said:
I just read that the Supreme Court will be ruling on a case involving a school performing a strip search of a young teenage girl because someone said she might have prescription strength ibuprofen. Apparently ibuprofen (Advil) is considered a dangerous drug these days.

So I think we are there, guys.

Well... I knew that ibuprofen is just a pain killer. So what if they only use this for medicinal purposes? It's true that all medicines can be become a dangerous drug when used incorrected or overused.

Stripping teenage girls on schools will greatly lead to child abuse and misuse of power.

deanhills · Mar 25, 2009

The Parakeet said:
... could look at what you checked out, which sorta falls under the "man with nothing to hide hides nothing."

Think the part that worries me is who are watching over those who check us out, and what happens with that information? For example if the SEC should do an investigation into an allegedly fraudulent investment deal, and request all the investors' bank statements from the Banks, without advising the investors that they have requested this. Then retrieves all the data, and stores the data in their databases at the SEC, again without your knowledge or permission. I would have expected that if Banking Statements were Subpoenaed from a Bank, that those Investors concerned would be advised, and once the investigation is over, that the information be deleted. This is just a small example, but it is just too easy to get hold of people's information, and then use it in a way that could be detrimental to them, without it being the intention to do so. Another example is when during a criminal investigation someone has been subpoenaed to deliver a DNA sample, and then has been found to be not-guilty. Then the assumption should be that the DNA sample be destroyed and deleted from the records. Instead it is kept on file, I don't think that is right.

curious · Mar 25, 2009

We are not far from the day when we will be fingerprinted and DNA taken at birth. Our every move will be monitored (as it is now in much of London and elsewhere in England).

deanhills · Mar 25, 2009

curious said:
We are not far from the day when we will be fingerprinted and DNA taken at birth. Our every move will be monitored (as it is now in much of London and elsewhere in England).

That's so true. Like that old book 1984, except it happened much later, and all of it in slow-a-motion without us realizing it.

curious · Mar 31, 2009

You are right. It's the slow-motion part that makes it all possible. That and fear-mongering.

I visited Dachau once, and they had a display of newspaper articles from the beginning of Hitler's rise until well into the war. As you read each one, in sequence, you can see the insidious way the Jews were assigned blame for all of Germany's problems. It was easy to recognize when read over a period of a half hour or so, but spread over years, it was probably close to invisible to the average German.

deanhills · Apr 1, 2009

curious said:
You are right. It's the slow-motion part that makes it all possible. That and fear-mongering.

I visited Dachau once, and they had a display of newspaper articles from the beginning of Hitler's rise until well into the war. As you read each one, in sequence, you can see the insidious way the Jews were assigned blame for all of Germany's problems. It was easy to recognize when read over a period of a half hour or so, but spread over years, it was probably close to invisible to the average German.

I recently scanned through Hitler's "Mein Kampf" chapters on the Internet and you are so right here as in every Chapter there was blame and blame being on Jews. References of course were also made to Gypsies and "impure" non-Aryans of other European countries. Quite disgusting, can't understand how he could have got to power with a book like that. Imagine someone standing for election to Government in this day and age, he would have been pulled into shreds!

The Parakeet · Apr 2, 2009

I don't think it would ever get that bad. The Jews were oppressed because no one cared. There was a lot of antisemitism throughout the world. The Jews were well aware of the fact that they were losing their rights. The problem was that no one else cared.

If you really want to know why I have faith in our rights, here's an example.

I'm a gamer. I like video games and I follow the politics surrounding them. There has been a sufficient movement by several Congressmen to pass laws restricting game sales in a manner similar to pornography. Each one of those laws has been fought tooth and nail by consumer groups. Not a single one has stood up in court.

Gamers are a small group that most of the political movement doesn't care about. We are insignificant. We are good scapegoats. There are people out there watching out for us.

If a little group like us can have effective watchdogs, then I'm not that worried about the future.

curious · Apr 2, 2009

Safety is an illusion. We can never be safe. We can be safer, but not safe. I don't want to be in a building that gets attacked by terrorists, but I don't want to be mugged because we don't have enough police on the streets, or drown because we didn't repair a bridge, either. Dead is dead.

National Security or Freedom?

Similar threads