Question for Dems and Reps regarding domestic security.?

Question

As everyone is aware there is currently a lot of debate regarding to what extent the government must honor citizens' right to privacy.

I am wondering how the U.S.(or any free-society) could deal with the following issues without severely impacting civil liberties.

Hypothetically, let's say it came to a point where the U.S. was experiencing, say 50 weekly suicide bombings through out the nation.

Additionally, let's imagine that a terrorist organization announced that it had a smuggled a nuclear weapon onto "U.S. soil" in a tractor trailer and will be setting it off at its discretion.

I hope these events never occur, but I think we should think about them in case they do.

Does anyone have any idea of how we could meet these threats without curtailing civil liberties? It seems that if things like these happened, we would have to just bite the bullet and curtail civil liberties. Does anyone have any ideas?

mild_irritant-- I realize Ben Franklin is a founding father, and I respect his opinion. But do you think the founding fathers could really conceive of the challenges that would face America in the 21st century? I don't know if we can use a quote from so long ago when we are talking about instruments of death that couldn't even be dreamed of then.

Answer 1

"Right to privacy" is not in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only enumerates certain privacy issues....privacy in the home-3rd Amend(not housing soldiers)...religious privacy-1st Amend.(beliefs) and so on.

Many believe in a very broad interpretation of the Constitution and personal privacy is covered thru the 14th Amend
(under "liberty")....the SC has yet to rule on exactly what that means...though they have ruled on certain issues re: personal privacy( like Roe v Wade)

Most Americans believe in the broad interpretation of the 14th Amend....even if they do not agree with that particular ruling( R v W)

Answer 2

If our ports were more secure, the chances of nuclear device coming into this country would be reduced exponentially. I think that most of the outrage over domestic surveying's is caused by the dreadful and high handed way the administration instituted these policies. I still have not heard a valid factual argument justifying going around the FISA court. There are allowances for taps w/out warrants. Why do you hide something from a secret court? If they were really interested in protecting the homeland, securing our borders would go a long ways toward achieving this goal. I don't mean a fence, what an asinine waste of our money.


J Edgar hoover had no regard for the constitution, He was interested only in personal power (and Chanel gowns). His Files were used for blackmail, not the national interests, and how did Kennedy violate civil rights during the Cuban missile crisis?
McCarthyism and Japanese interment are just a couple of examples of what happens when governments are allowed to operate above public scrutiny.

Answer 3

Are we so ignorant to think that our civil liberties have not been curtailed or walked on when a national crisis such as your scenario have faced our former presidents? Kennedy faced one with Cuba and Russian missiles during my lifetime. J. Edgar Hoover would have broken every one of your civil liberties to have gotten information that would save this country. I would do it. In a life and death situation for this country who stops to think if it is lawful or not. If you fear the situation that greatly, you would realize it is a life and death situation.

Our government as usual is playing politics Reps vs Dems and most of us are sick of them.

I don't want the Constitution changed for any reason. Every President has been able to override any law in a national crisis. I don't want Congress setting us up for a One World Order.

Answer 4

what's unhappy is that there become more effective safe practices on the FRENCH embassy than on the Libyan embassy. And which one become contained in the middle of a warfare zone surrounded by way of hostiles? inspite of the "cuts" there become adequate money to positioned a detachment of Marines in FRANCE! Now I figure the Marines in France probable might want to have favourite to stay in FRANCE, yet the position do you (or every person with a mind) imagine the money (Marines) could were given priority to?????? and that is the concern, it become no longer about cuts or no longer adequate money, it really is about obama and his administration no longer having a clue and getting human beings killed. AND sure you're accurate, even as more effective democrats vote for some thing than Republicans and the democrat Senate votes to approve it and the president indicators it, it truly is the democrats fault even without the above reported options.

Answer 5

I think you're right, I bet cities would be put on curfews etc, there would be a ton of extra police shifts etc. Also cops would be a lot more picky about breaking the law...i think we would just have to bite th ebullet for our safety...if you ask me not being on the streets of NYC after 9 or something is more than worthwhile if it keeps a bomb from killing everybody

Answer 6

Those who would sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither.