Those who would give up ESSENTIAL liberty to purchase a little TEMPORARY safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety Options

[Comptine]

The topic title is a quote that is often misquoted as Benjamin Franklin's. However, no matter who said it, let's anaylze the quote and use it for modern day purposes, just for the hell of it.

In my mind, I think suspending essential liberties just for security damages the ideals our country was built upon, the ideals that democracy were built upon. The Patriotic Act comes strongly to mind because, while it targets only a certain group of Americans, it seems that our liberties are not guaranteeed even though America and the UN say they are. Though suspending the liberties of certain people or only suspending a certain liberty (right to privacy) seem small compare to a nation's welfare, it seems that what the Bill of Rights and the Constitution dictates isn't meant to be constant.

Do you think temporary security, or any security if you want, is worth the suspension of essential liberties (in my mind civil and constitutional rights = essential liberties)?

[Spirited Away]

This is a great topic. I have a question...

How do we protect freedom without providing security of it thus?

[Comptine]

This is a great topic. I have a question...

How do we protect freedom without providing security of it thus?

Thanks for bumping. I kinda forgot about this.

I think for democracy and the idea of freedom to work, certain liberties should always and without a doubt be sacred and untouchable. The right to life for example (which itself is already not sacred). The right to habeas corpus which protect everyone in the event they get in trouble.

I also think that it is against democracy's values to single out a certain group without proper measurements. I understand targeting Arab Americans after 9/11 - there is a certain level of understandableness (if that made any sense). However, if you do single them out, don't abolish their rights just because of their skin color/religion. I assert this because it only effects one group so other groups (mainly white Americans who never get profiled) think it's okay that rights are being taken away and that our Constitution is being shredded. If you think it is of national security to lock up all Japanese/Arabs/whatever, then do it so that even if it's kinda racist, you still acknowledge that these are humans and citizens. Allow them to talk to their lawyers. Allow them to have a fair trail. At the very least, allow them to know their charges and not hold them indefinitely.

I get that our nation is in a time of crisis and is constantly at an alert. But, when this is done with, when you can't imprison the people any longer, how will you answer to the public about the actions? How will you, having decades to learn from the Japanese interment camps of WWII, answer to letting it happen again?

[Spirited Away]

I think for democracy and the idea of freedom to work, certain liberties should always and without a doubt be sacred and untouchable.

Yes, absolutely. However, the question in response to "would you give up essential liberties for temporary safety" stands: how do you protect freedom without providing security for it? Or, how do you secure certain liberties for a group of people without taking away some freedom from others? I think this is near impossible.

As much as I hate it, my take on this is, for someone to win, someone else has to lose. It is a necessary evil.

[Comptine]

Yes, absolutely. However, the question in response to "would you give up essential liberties for temporary safety" stands: how do you protect freedom without providing security for it? Or, how do you secure certain liberties for a group of people without taking away some freedom from others? I think this is near impossible.

As much as I hate it, my take on this is, for someone to win, someone else has to lose. It is a necessary evil.

I don't think a necessary evil should apply to essential rights.

I think temporary safety is like the internment camps during WWII. Obviously, in the long run, it did nothing for the security of the United States. The Japanese interned showed no real evidence of sabotage or treason. However, having them all locked up, calmed the nation down and gave them a sense of security. That is what shouldn't happen.

You have to keep in mind that if you let another group lose liberties, you are essentially allowing the government to take away yours in the future if they feel like it. Since you aren't Arab during our War on Terror, you don't have anything to fear. But if you were like... Chinese and some Chinese extremists bombed the UN, then what happened to the Arabs can happen to you because you allowed it to happen back then because it wasn't you.

[Spirited Away]

I don't think a necessary evil should apply to essential rights.

I think temporary safety is like the internment camps during WWII. Obviously, in the long run, it did nothing for the security of the United States. The Japanese interned showed no real evidence of sabotage or treason. However, having them all locked up, calmed the nation down and gave them a sense of security. That is what shouldn't happen.

You have to keep in mind that if you let another group lose liberties, you are essentially allowing the government to take away yours in the future if they feel like it. Since you aren't Arab during our War on Terror, you don't have anything to fear. But if you were like... Chinese and some Chinese extremists bombed the UN, then what happened to the Arabs can happen to you because you allowed it to happen back then because it wasn't you.

I'm sorry to have neglected this topic for so long, but here I am again.

Yes, I agree with you that such ordeals shouldn't happen. When the government is so overt with its prejudices during critical times, the result is an amplification of such prejudices by its citizens. However, without taking NECESSARY precautions or actions(whatever the case may be), how does any government guarantee safety?