What is a greater sign of weakness?
Getting attacked (where the perpitrators are trying to scare you) and changing your values because you're scared.
or
Getting attacked and standing firm by saying "You'll have to kill a lot more of us for us to give up liberty"
2007-06-29 17:38:49 · 6 answers · asked by Kevin 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why is it that only the mindless, conspiracy freaks have lost all their freedoms due to the patriot act.. while the rest of us have EXACTLY the same rights and freedoms we had before?
But let's take your question farther..
Which is a greater sign of weakness?
Declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.
or
Sending a message to Tokyo saying "you'll have to kill a lot more of us than that before we'll bother responding"
2007-06-29 17:49:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they are genuine rights, then the first is weaker.
If they are made up rights, not real rights, not constitutional rights, such as freedom of the press to write anything they want whenever they want, or the "right to privacy", or the right to libel or slander the government, then the second one is weaker because we're giving the enemy an advantage for imaginary rights insisted upon by those who think we shouldn't be fighting back in the first place, just giving in to another fifty years of terrorist attacks.
2007-06-30 00:43:50 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, the right thing to do is to do everything possible to prevent people from getting killed. If that means the patriot act then by all means lets do it.
2007-07-04 00:30:19 · answer #3 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can honestly go both ways.
A. You let the perps change your way of life quickly and then the perps can continue with the threats until they have it their way.
B. This is weak in the sense that you are letting your people die when you should be protecting them. I'd say more irresponsible than weak.
2007-06-30 00:42:52 · answer #4 · answered by Nico 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think both positions are irrational and naive.
we have to safegaurd our civil liberties as well as our public safety. this debate is as old as civilization. i agree that there are provisions of the patriot act that go to far, but we cant throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
one virtue of it, i would say, is allowing law inforcement to communicate with intelligence agencies - removing the legal "wall" that had been in place since FISA was established.
2007-06-30 00:46:04 · answer #5 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The former. It's just stupid to think we have to give up our rights for the overblown "war" on terror.
2007-06-30 00:43:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋