would you trade your rights for safety?

Question

would you trade your freedom for security? when i say security, i just mean protection from foreign attackers.

Answer 1

once you give up your rights, you are inherently unsafe. Do you really believe our government never makes a mistake? Do you really believe the 44 people who died under military torture at Abu Ghraib were all guilty of a crime? Do you believe that once taking the power to detain and torture with NO accountability, that our government will limit themselves with arresting only foreign "suspects" and legal immigrants who are "suspects"? So much for safety.

Answer 2

Some level of protection is a very basic and pretty much universally accepted function of government. But of course with this protection, comes a certain level of freedom loss. I think our consitutiion in the US helps us maintain a pretty good balance of personal rights considerations versus the governments ability to stop individuals from harming others. There has got to be a balance somewhere, and that is why we have things like "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion." So, I would have to say that I am willing to give up some freedom for the sake of protection and safety. But only because without some protection, society would quickly devolve into something like a post-apocalyptic "Escape from LA" scene.

Answer 3

Those who have the right to freedom and liberty, have a right to defend themselves. We look toward our government when it comes to foreign policy to act on our behalf when dealing with those who respect neither liberty nor our right to defend ourselves. We also are trying to defend ourselves against a foe who take advantage of our liberties to use against us. It's a terrible situation to be in.

As it stands, we are faced with the reality that our lives have been changed forever due to groups of foreign attackers who respect neither our way of life or our personal freedoms. As if to say, "We can do this to you because of your flawed philosophies."

Our reactions to balance security with freedom is the best we can do at this point in time. I don't like being tracked on every plane flight by the Government, but that is the reality now. At least I can still move about freely. My personal privacy, though not truly violated yet, could be if a foreign attacker successfully uses another freedom we have against us again.

This is actually a very serious situation that our representatives in government have to sort out. How do you balance the government's responsibility to defend the States from foreign aggression and maintain foreign policy when the aggression has violated our very soil? How does the government ensure that they are staying with in the limits of the constitution which is to limit the government's intrusion upon citizen's inalienable rights especially when the foreign aggressors mask themselves as citizens? And how do we, as citizens know where and how to defend ourselves without violating others rights to liberty?

Though it's clear that any person who is a citizen of the United States who acts as an agent of a foreign power is not protected by our laws and respects. The question then is how do you sort them out and separate them when they are masking themselves as citizens?

I wish your question was an easy one to answer, but considering all of the above, we are going to have to dance with the idea of trading certain freedoms for certain securities. Though as it was mentioned above by another post, we will deserve neither during this unsettling time. Almost as a term of Martial Law. We can only hope that once the threats are contained in some fashion, our policies will relax to allow the people to feel less intruded upon.

Answer 4

I'd rather go down swinging than give up my rights. It's not worth my freedom to have security. Security is wonderful and important, but not even close to as important as my freedoms and rights, without those there's no real security anyway, you're just depending on someone else.

Answer 5

Those who would trade freedom for more safety, deserve niether freedom or saftey.

As far as foriegn attackers goes, the chances of you being attacked, is expontially slim. Actually more attacks come from home grown sources. Mr. McViegh, line 1.

Answer 6

You qualify protection, but what do you mean by freedom? The problem with sacrificing one freedom at one moment is that you don't know who might use that later for other reasons. If you give up the right to legally carry a handgun in order to control people who carry handguns illegally now, what happens 20 years down the road if you need to carry a handgun to protect yourself from 'foreign attackers' but you can't get a gun???

Quantify your question so that it can be answered intelligently!

Answer 7

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin (on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania - 1759)

Answer 8

NOT for a republican dime!!!!!!!!!!

It is sad that no one seems to understand that no matter how many rights you give up you are still NOT safe. If the bad guys want to get in they will. Logically a suicide attacker may have a target in mind but he still gets his message across even if he is shot down in mid air. Besides the more you try to control people the more people slip by-----Locks only serve to keep honest people honest.

Answer 9

Well I tell you what this goes hand in hand with that micro chip question, as long as I have the will to live and the ability to provide for my family by living with and off the land.
I'd be pretty hard to find the day our freedom is given up and were told where to go and what to do and how to do it.
This isn't to far off though I could see it happening, maybe not in my lifetime.

Answer 10

If you start thinking like that, you'll soon end up with a Dictator and no security or freedom.