2006-10-29 08:16:57 · 12 answers · asked by curious george 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There theoretically might be a time when some such actions might be useful on a limited basis.
We are not even close to that time, and the restrictions that have been made are blows to our way of life and our historic beliefs as a nation.
2006-10-29 08:20:05 · answer #1 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no national security, your own government are doing it. They are doing it, to take away your civil liberties, they are trying to scare you, open your eyes. The question you have to ask yourself. Is it as really bad as they are making out it out to be? If you stop reading the newspapers and watching the news, the world is a much nicer place. Is crime as bad as what they say it is? Or is it all propaganda so you feel scared and unsafe. So when they want a law change, you all go YES and agree to it. All is not what it seems.
Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviour of people, rather than impartially providing information. An appeal to one's emotions is, perhaps, the more obvious propaganda method, but there are varied other more subtle and insidious forms. On the other hand, a most common characteristic of propaganda is volume (in the sense of a large amount). Individually propaganda functions as self-deception. Culturally it works within religions, politics, and economic entities like those which both favour and oppose globalization. Commercially it works within the (mass) market in the free market societies.
2006-10-29 16:32:25 · answer #2 · answered by johnnymifo 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Restricting civil liberties could include making people stop for red lights. I think you meant to ask if the US government should infringe on people's constitutional rights.
Your question is arbitrary.
2006-10-29 16:22:23 · answer #3 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that the people should restrict the government's right to restrict our civil liberties. We should start with a firing squad.
2006-10-29 16:21:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the PEOPLE of the US should restrict civil liberties in the interest of national security!
2006-10-29 16:18:42 · answer #5 · answered by godoompah 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It depends on the circumstances and it should only be for a defined period of time. Security is not free and sometimes drastic measures need to be taken to ensure security for all but some people don't understand this.
2006-10-29 16:19:57 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
2006-10-29 16:20:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the forfeiture of some liberties are to be sacrificed for safety then yes. Before 9/11 I would have said no.
2006-10-29 16:20:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
it already does, and all nations do, they have to balance order and liberty-- its the amount of tension between these two that people decide in a Democracy.
2006-10-29 16:20:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I really have no problem with it. If I have to give up my privacy to help the government avoid a nuclear holocaust, then so be it!
2006-10-29 16:19:58 · answer #10 · answered by right_wing_extremist_2008 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋