Should National Security Supercede conflicting claims of individual Rights? In other words, Do you feel that when you walk into the airport. and security checks you head to toe. Taking the shoes off even is violating your individual rights. Is it a necessity to maintain nation security in such a far level that often you become discriminated against or even detained for simply saying the wrong words? I feel It is necessary to national security to check every person. But my question is are they going to far?
2007-10-22 16:04:31 · 6 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin 1759
I think there is big difference between submitting to a required and announced search......come on, if your on your way to the airport you know it's coming.......and having phone taps and searches without a warrant or your right to free speech suppressed.
It is not your unalienable right to fly on a plane or walk into a public building so get over it. However, free speech and privacy are cornerstones of our Constitution. Surrender them at our peril. Will the land of the free and home of the brave become the land of the watched and the home of the frightened. We are on our way. We currently have leaders who have maintained power by keeping us frightened and another crop trying to gain power using the same tactics. What have their promises to keep us safe accomplished? Screeners at LAX failed to detect fake bombs 75% of the time over the last couple of years. 60% at O'Hare. Are the borders and ports secure? Sacrifice your liberties? For what?
2007-10-22 16:49:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
When "National Security" supersedes individual rights by destroying the Bill of Rights and allowing the government to enter and search someones house without warrant, we are not the United States. I really don't want to live in a totalitarian state.
I will agree with reasonable measures like removing shoes at an airport, but the Bush administration has gone far beyond this.
I'm really glad Richard Reed (shoe bomber) didn't carry explosives up his butt, or they would have a proctologist examining everyone.
2007-10-22 16:24:14 · answer #2 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, persons would desire to learn from early lifestyles to value the rights that they have been born into. Yeah, that's patriotism at that's maximum appropriate. Many now not have self assurance in such issues, yet us that do have self assurance be attentive to that if we would desire to set aside our guy or woman rights, we would desire to continually be donning a uniform. a minimum of, that's what I did. Gave up a number of my rights, for a quick time, in substitute for a uniform. the assumption is that a patriotic united states desires no militia draft, AND it never infringes upon the rights of that's electorate. The electorate would desire to volunteer to take care of one yet another, domestically and the international over.
2016-11-09 06:15:10 · answer #3 · answered by polich 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When it comes to airports, there is nothing wrong with tight security. In some instances, however, the government oversteps constitutional boundaries. There are plenty of tools within the constitution to fight terrorism.
2007-10-22 16:17:38 · answer #4 · answered by haywood jablome 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it depends on who you talk to. personally, i rather lose a few rights than lose my life or the life of a loved one. what many have to understand you can't have it both ways.
2007-10-22 16:15:45 · answer #5 · answered by caroline k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't care what they do at the airport, as long as they do it to everyone.
2007-10-22 16:27:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋