Where is the line drawn between freedom and national security?

Question

Bush signed orders allowing the opening of mail without warrants -
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/16381095.htm?source=rss&channel=cctimes_news

Warrantless wiretapping

Suspension of habeas corpus for those deemed as enemy combatants (a very vague term)

Alleged torture (what constitutes torture here, I'll leave to you)

I'm sure there's more that I've forgotten.

My question is, at what point does the American public (or government) put their feet down and declare that their will not be any more repeals of freedom? How much of this (all, nothing, somewhere in between) is necessary for protection from terrorism?

Answer 1

If you would choose security over freedom, then you deserve neither.

Answer 2

They've crossed the line several times. If we allow potential terrorists or the threat of terrorism to change our basic principles, they've won. There are ways to have national security by following the rules. They simply don't want to follow the rules. Bypassing warrants and processes is not the way. If there is probable cause to open mail, they can get warrants. There are reasons for having those checks and balances to search and seizure. The IRS,d drug enforcement and likely the NSA have been violating this sort of thing for years.

Oh, there are those that say, "they're terrorists, that's why we're listenting". Well, how do they know they are? Those listenting can just say they are terrorists. We've seen tons of mistakes where they've detained residents/citizens and/or shipped them out of the country only to find out the person did nothing wrong. What's there to stop them from coming for you next time?

Answer 3

That's a question we have been asking since our country was founded. There is always a balance between security and freedom. We, as free people, have to decide what we're willing to allow the government to do in order to keep us safe vs. infringing on our rights.

I can clear up one of your vague terms tho.."Illegal Combatant", that was used originally to cover spies and resistance members, and they have *no* protections under the Geneva Conventions. They dont get Habeas Corpus, they dont get Miranda Rights, they could be shot out of hand and it would be legal. If you're not a member of a militay organization, wearing a uniform, then you are an illegal combatant. And if we shot them, like you know damn well they do to our soldiers, who deserve those protections, we would accomplish more. If we dont learn to fight like they do, we're gonna continue to lose men a few at a time.

If you dont like the actions of our government..VOTE..put people in office that believe as you do.

Answer 4

well since the supreme court ruled during WWII that mail can be opened and was this is not anything new. wiretapping was proven to be ok when the beginning or end of the communication is out side the US which means it is not internal communication and habeas corpus suspension is ONLY for non US Citizens. So if you read the entire writings and know history and not just leftist rhetoric you would know this.

but you are right where do you draw the line. some want no protection and some want alot. Its not a black and white answer but to not know all the facts in basing decisions on if the line was crossed is a gross negligence.

Answer 5

Unfortunately it's a new world since 911. We're in an all out war against terrorists that want us dead at all costs. As for the wire tapping program, Congress voted on it, and it was passed, and if you're not a terrorist then you have nothing to worry about. That program has stopped several potential attacks on the U.S. Torture? You said it, "alleged". Nonetheless, I don't really care what tactics they use on terrorists to get information that may save lives of innocent Americans. What's it going to take for people to realize the threat that these animals pose to us?

Answer 6

As long as sheeple keep watching and believing Fox News or CNN everything that is spewed out on the airwaves, they will gladly continue trading their freedoms to continue watching Lost or American Idol. They just don't get it. Also, as long as the gov is involved in state sponsored training camps (public schools), people will continue to learn less and less about civics, what our Founding Fathers stood and fought for, etc.. until they have no idea what they have lost. It's sad but true and only TRUE Patriots, of the Founding Father types, not the Fox News types, will be able to stop the menace of the ever growing empire. Good luck to you.

Answer 7

You can't deny that monitoring of communications provides assistance in monitoring terrorism. I'm not really in favor of it, but I understand that it does protect us.

I do not stand by suspension of habeas corpus nor torture, I think that hurts us (America is great because it is good, when we stop being good, we stop being great). If you arrest a terrorist, what's the worst that can happen by providing them all of their legal rights? Or is the evidence gathered flimsy? And if it is flimsy, what kind of case do you have?

In terms of average American citizens though, since the war on terror started, how many of you have had your lives affected by these changes in policy? (I haven't)

Answer 8

i think of the suited government would be no government in any respect, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that it is not available to allow human beings to stay between one yet another with purely the terror of revenge to maintain them from harming one yet another. (i'd desire to be a Libertarian, yet no longer an anarchist). yet, heavily, i think of the form is the suited checklist written in 2000 years..there have been different reliable issues that have been written like the Magna Carta...English and French regulation...yet diverse concept went into it, i do no longer think of all people right this moment could make any further constructive or longer lasting version...it actual has provisions to adapt. it incredibly is our very own society it quite is abusing it and making it much less. i've got not got a difficulty with dropping a number of my freedoms for the sake of protection as long as added tests and balances are implement and there is real oversight (in the spirit of the unique framers) by skill of all 3 branches--for any valid reason or suspicion--and proper standard innovations are taken--despite if it is purely a droop. yet someway, the politics would desire to be eradicated from this invasion. The worst factor would be if the leaders used any of this thoughts for any style of non-public income. As for the present condition, each and every of the above applies with the addition of the lack of participation by skill of the voters in this technique. we've been asked to do no longer something better than supply purely a sprint our freedom away for the sake of protection--we are no longer allowed to take care of ourselves from terrorism in any way. If this grew to become right into a real emergency, the government would desire to place self assurance in all its patriots. Granted, i do no longer understand what the respond is, however the government isn't permitting us the person-friendly freedom to take care of ourselves. i think of terrorism is extra plausible to our u . s . somewhat than plausible to us in my view (as yet besides). So i'd would desire to assert that the government should not be waiting to curtail our freedom with out including the voters from being a factor of the answer and a being portion of the determination making technique-it is our u . s ..

Answer 9

I would have to trust the legal system on that one, but I am grateful we have an organization of checks and balances in this country that has, for the most part, kept infringements to a minimum. As long as there is balance in government and independent organizations like the ACLU, we can be secure in the fact that people work tirelessly on these very issues.

Answer 10

I'd say that whatever FDR did in WWII (but for mass internments) should be allowed today.

That takes politics out of it.

I don't think FDR was a war criminal.

But I do think that courts are holding some practices unconstitutional that have been used for the last 200+ years. That troubles me much more than the Bush programs.

Answer 11

Sadly, many Americans believe that the need for vigilance is over, and that government can be trusted. They simply trust the government to do what is right, contrary to the warnings of the men who put that government together. The line is drawn wherever people draw it, and too many Americans aren't even paying attention to where their crayons are.