Should civil liberties and rights be overridden when national security is perceived to be at risk even when this is just suspicion (if thats how u spell it) and there is no real concrete evidence?
2007-07-31 10:30:49 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
My personal opinion is that no...we should never give up human rights. If we need to be scared or cautious or frightened...then so be it.
I believe in government FOR the people not government IN SPITE of the people.
If I have an enemy, let me look into his face, let me see his hatred, let me face my enemy...
I am not a fool...I am not a coward...if I am at war...so be it. Let me fight for what i believe in.
Why would my government want to deny me these things?
2007-07-31 10:37:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Security and civil liberties are two ends of a stick which must be balanced.
A lot of people will tell you they don't think we should ever give up civil liberties for security, but the fact is they want policies that give added security in exchange for liberties they're willing to sacrifice.
For example, do you think people should be banned from carring a loaded gun on an airplane? Do you think everyone who is arrested should have their personal information logged into a database for all eternity? Do you think a person in a suburban neighborhood should be barred from having lions roam freely on his front yard?
Those are extreme examples, but they show security and liberty are a balancing act not an absolute.
2007-07-31 10:53:18 · answer #2 · answered by Paul S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't take a risk on my life or my childs if I had a suspicion that some idiot might be contemplating putting my own and others lives at risk I would report them and let the authorities question and deal with regardless of any concrete evidence.
2007-07-31 10:37:02 · answer #3 · answered by Jewel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, never. Civil liberties and rights were hard won and should never be surrendered. If the security services cannot work within the rules, that's their problem. You should not change the rules. It is but a short step from the denial of civil liberties to dictatorships. Americans should be concerned with what is happening in Guantanamo Bay in their name.
2007-07-31 10:36:00 · answer #4 · answered by tentofield 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Law used to be 'Innocent until proven Guilty'.
Terrorism changed that, everyone is now 'Guilty until proven innocent'.
When people decide to kill innocent people (women, children, pensioners etc), in the name of their religion (a holy belief), life changes.
I would rather be imprisoned for 58 days on a suspicion, than see any terrorist walk free to kill and maim innocent people.
2007-07-31 10:47:16 · answer #5 · answered by wonkyfella 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
national security is bullshit. nobody can threaten a nation it's just a word.
border security isn't bullshit
human security should alway supercede national security.
2007-07-31 10:36:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you talk about human rights when they are being overlooked in many parts of the world - Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam
2007-07-31 10:33:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋