English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-11 13:49:36 · 12 answers · asked by jj 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

yupchagee that isn't a freedom to begin with. try harder!

I am speaking about the people who keep saying, :we have too many freedoms, and should give some up for security."
which ones are they talking about?

2006-12-11 13:54:16 · update #1

Bad example Chance20_m, better check with the laws again, there are several exceptions to that "privilege"!

2006-12-11 13:59:09 · update #2

nicolasraage, the comment this question is referring to was stated long before the warantless wiretaps became an issue.

2006-12-11 14:01:37 · update #3

loaded question?? i wasn't the one that made the statment that it is referring to!

2006-12-11 14:05:57 · update #4

12 answers

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security---Ben Franklin

I would quibble a bit with ole Ben, I never handed mine in, but fighting to reclaim it is more complicated these days.

I once had a friend who bought a dog to keep them safe from burglers. They never had any more burglers, but the dog was a constant issue and uproar, left scars on every member of the family, tore up all the furniture, and got them sued when it bit and severely injured a neighbor.

Security can be a lot like that in the best of situations.

2006-12-11 14:54:47 · answer #1 · answered by No Bushrons 4 · 2 1

Hitler started small when taking away freedoms of the German people in the name of "security" until eventually there weren't any freedoms & he started the force people to do what he commanded. FDR took away Less freedoms than the Patriot Act and that was in the middle of World War 2 in which 50 million people died! The 3,000 tragic deaths of 9/11 will never be forgotten but like Pearl Harbor that kind of tradgedy only happens once in a generation & it certainly doesn't give the right to Bush to change the constitution without an admendment.

2006-12-11 22:23:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Ha, what a loaded question. I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole..

Okay, maybe a little jab...

I'd say no freedoms are insignificant, but I also think many things we take for granted are privilages, not freedoms. You don't have a right to drive a car without a license for example.

Edit:
Can you please cite any US constitutional amendment that gives you the RIGHT to drive? Oh, I didn't think so. Try again.

2006-12-11 21:54:24 · answer #3 · answered by Chance20_m 5 · 2 1

There are no insignificant freedoms, but if you are not a terrorist plotter, you do not have to worry about his restricted activities. Without security, all freedoms are lost. Ask the Jews of the holocaust!!

One of Hitler's henchmen stated, "We have tried democracy, and by means of democracy, we have defeated democracy."

That is the message to those who are overly concerned with U.S. efforts to restrict the freedoms of those who would blow you up in a second. The stated aim of 9/11 was to kill 50,000. Now they threaten in terms of millions.

You decide what you are willing to sacrifice to thwart that effort,, or should we just let it happen?

The holocaust did not kill only Jews, nor will Al Qaida, Abu Sayyad, nor Ahmedinejad and his ilk. Of the 13,000,000 people who were enslaved and mass murdered by Hitler and his minions, 6,000,000 were innocent Jews whose only "crime" against the state was their blood heritage. While the world bargained for peace, Hitler was bargaining for time. Don't let it happen again!! Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This time the potential destructive power is far greater.

We have already lost the freedom to travel without worry or untold inconvenience. Forty years ago, you went to the airport at the last minute and got on the plane without any security checks.
Are you willing to give up those security measures in order to travel like we used to when people could be trusted not to use your plane as a manned flying missile with which to attack a city of innocent people?

Don't make or receive any long distance calls to Al Qaida, and dont make any electronic money transfers to them, and you won't have to worry about any loss of freedom. Be glad that someone is watching your back and jkeeping you safe in what has become a very dangerous world for you and your children.

2006-12-12 01:55:47 · answer #4 · answered by Archer 1 1 · 0 3

None all freedoms are sacred and we have military members dying each and every day to protect those great and sacred freedoms for us.

2006-12-11 21:53:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Free people ARE secure...there is no security ....without Freedom.

2006-12-11 21:53:27 · answer #6 · answered by Wisconsin Scuba Gal 1 · 2 0

Its always somebody elses freedom they are willing to sacrafice. Not all are equal.

2006-12-11 21:58:16 · answer #7 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2 0

The freedom to talk to foreign terrorists without anyone eavesdropping.

2006-12-11 21:52:42 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1 3

chance (above) nailed this one. People confuse privelidges with rights.

For instance, people think they have a "right" to call afghanastan during a time of war there, and think it should fall under a privacy right. Why is that privacy? you are in your home, but the line of communication is in international air/water space. Explain that...

2006-12-11 21:58:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

None

2006-12-11 21:51:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers