Should we compromise our constitutional rights when it comes to our homeland security? Speech class topic.?

Question

Im doing a debate in speech class and Im against but Im not really understanding this topic. Could someone explain to me what this is and give me a few hints?

Answer 1

We should never compromise our freedoms in the name of "security"!

If you give up freedom to be safe, then you don't live in a free soceity anymore.

Answer 2

The protection of civil liberties are far more important. America's founding fathers even said that a government is institued to protect the unalienable rights of the people. And if that government should become overly oppressive and destructive it is right of the people to abolish that government and institute a new one. This is in the Declaration of Independence. Once a government starts to take away those liberties it most certainly will become destructive. Those who have traded their liberty for safety have paid dearly for it. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union just to name a few examples. If we start giving up our civil liberties for security it can evolve to the point when the government can become so oppresive that they can throw innocent people in their prison. Torture the innocent. Restrict travel like Stalin did. Set up checkpoints so where you need an National ID or internal passport to get through. And very rarely were those issued. Use their military to oppress the people. Force them to house their military. Bust down the door of your house for no good reason and haul you off to prison. Wiretap your phones and emails without any reason. Convinscate personal belongings. For example, firearms so the people can't fight back. Even pick innocent people up off the street and throw them into a concentration camp so they can be tortured. When all they were doing was peacefully assembling, or speaking out against the injustices being done to them by their own government. Look at Patrick Henry's Give me Liberty or Give Me Death speach. He was basically telling the Congress that those British soldiers were coming to do the very things I mentioned. America's forefathers knew what a government can do and will do with its power. Even created a Constitution to limit its power. And they were willing to die to be free. This is why the protection of civil liberties are far more important.

Answer 3

We hold these truths to be self evident . . . The founding fathers did not think of the bill of rights as a tidy list of rights granted to the people by a benevolent government. Rather, they perceived a natural order where the government would be restrained in its conduct by rights naturally afforded citizens. If you take away these rights, you upset the natural order. In short, you no longer have a system of government which works for the people. You end up with a government that is imposing its will on the people rather than a people imposing their will on the government. That is the unique nature of our system and we are quickly losing it in the name of national security, the war on drugs, protecting our children etc. The best way to promote national security and protect our children is to continue to be the greatest and most free society in the history of the world. That is what our enemies do not get, that is what many Americans do not get, the only way we lose the war on terror is if we lose our freedom.

Answer 4

In order to ensure 'homeland security' in the face of the terrorist enemy, the current government implemented The Patriot Act. That gives the government the right to read your emails, listen in on your phone calls and review all your phone bills. It, essentially, allowed for 'Big Brother' to be watching every citizen of the United States. Also under this act, the government allowed for hundreds of citizens...suspected of terrorist involvement...to be rounded up and put in jail...without legal representation or even justification for doing so. Many of these people are subjected to legalized 'torture'.

In the name of protecting the country, Bush has eliminated many of the constitutional rights of the American people...that is the discussion. Does he have the right to abolish the constitution? Is America okay with that? Do the ends justify the means?

My answer...NO! The constitution is the foundation of the country... and NO LEADER has the unilateral right to pick and choose which rights and freedoms he will abolish...all in the name of safety and protection.

Answer 5

Basically, what they're asking you to determine is whether it's worthwhile to give up a little bit of your liberty to protect the physical security of your country. It's an old debate: What is more important, life or liberty?

Personally, I think nothing is more important than liberty. I have no problem risking my life in order to preserve my rights. There are ways, within the bounds of the Constitution, wherein our government can protect us from foreign terrorist attacks. It's easier to say, "Give up your freedoms so we can protect you" than it is to come up with Constitutionally supported ways to protect us. Thus, we have the PATRIOT Act.

The PATRIOT Act is a good idea, in theory; however, the way it is currently written, an American citizen could be detained indefinitely without benefit of being charged with any crime, at the President's leisure. This is the most egregious violation of the American spirit (not to mention a little document called the Constitution) that I've ever heard, but it is now perfectly legal.

Give me liberty or give me death.

Answer 6

check into the civil war, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Then, look to the reason for why it was suspended. Compare and contrast a civil war to a foreign war. Do the same rules and logic apply to both kinds of wars? And then, look to current events regarding the lawsuits against the gov't and the PATRIOT act, and how that has discredited the govt and led to the release of some prisoners, on technicalities. Good luck

Answer 7

We, in the United States, have become afraid of being offended. We are offended by body jewelry, body piercing, foreign languages, dissent, questioning authority, non-Christian religions, no religion, socialism, anarchism, anything other than what resides in our suburban SUV-like comfort zones. We are afraid of anything unfamiliar. We attempt to control that which makes us uncomfortable. Institutionalized control, however, necessitates the presence of fear. And, institutionalized fear narrows people's options. And that, of course, is the point. Isn't it?

Our schools are but a microcosm of what is taking place nationally. The Bush regime routinely uses fear to push through its agenda. And, we the people, have allowed our fears to let the neo-cons have their way. We are told to accept perpetual war for perpetual peace. And when the people object a bit too much we can expect another dose of fear. David Cogswell writes,

When the population starts to feel a little too free, and bold enough to question its rulers, another attack or two should straighten the rabble out. (Bush's Trifecta: Control Through Fear, June 29, 2002)

Answer 8

No, the rights in the Bill of Rights are due every man or woman. They do not come from the Constitution, but from your existence as a person. They were included in the Bill of Rights to clearly draw the line of governmental power.

Answer 9

No we should not sacrifice our rights. What we should do is deal with the actual problem.

For example: fix our laws, enforce those laws and if all else fails build that border fence and have the military guard it.

Answer 10

The Constitution is supposed to restrain the government. It outlines our basic human rights; it doesn't grant them.