http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/05/musharraf-freedom/
The current White House is a comedy team.
2007-11-06 14:48:25 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
If you like, you can click on the link, to see what the WH has to say about it.
2007-11-06 15:03:49 · update #1
whats the point in being the land of the free if your freedom is limited. thats like fu**ing for virginity.
2007-11-06 14:51:48 · answer #1 · answered by ranaway628 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Watch the movie V for Vendetta. Dude is a must when you need a salad cut up, but same..
I suggest you red Outrage by Dick Morris. things foiled by Pat Act are just to numerous to list.
If you fly you jump thru hoops now. Before you might be profilesd for one way cash ticket and the airline regualtion worked. Then ACLU sued for two people and airlines caved in and 9/11.
i knew pilots and wondered why union didn't fight to stop as pilots worried. It would have stopped 9/11, something that had been on the books for eons.
oNe example in that book is the guy that was going to use the blow torch to cut Brooklyn bridge. You probably know this. They picked it up on a phone call.
Thing that makes me know it works is that someone in congress ran their big mouth and tipped the terrorist off and the terror yakking stopped. What a bunch....
Mr. Franklin would never have let it get this far. Take care.
2007-11-06 16:06:55 · answer #2 · answered by R J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't think any government could desire to do away with ones rights, freedoms or liberties. with the help of slowly whittling away at those freedoms, interior the excuse of terrorism additionally comes the actuality that those freedoms shouldn't get carry of back. by way of this technique, our government heads this u . s . too a the right thank you to the left, and interior the top, the Citizen will lose a lot.
2017-01-05 01:58:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we don't have to give up our freedom.
Where in the Constitution does it say that there is a right to talk on the phone to known terrorists or their known associates privately.
Those men that wrote the Constitution and The Bill of Rights would probably laugh in your face just before your execution for trying to legitimize such things.
The crime is called SEDITION look it up.
2007-11-06 15:22:59 · answer #4 · answered by CFB 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here is what one of the founding fathers had to say about it.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" _Ben Franklin
2007-11-06 14:52:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
absolutely not,
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
2007-11-06 14:51:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
No, we should vaporize muslim cities to deter terrorism. But we're not going to do that, so we're stuck treating it as a law enforcement issue, which means expanding police powers, which means giving up freedoms.
2007-11-06 14:52:26 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, we shouldn't. If we restrict our freedoms, we are no better off than the people we are fighting against.
2007-11-06 14:51:13 · answer #8 · answered by rebekkah hot as the sun 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that if you sacrifice liberty for security you get neither.
2007-11-06 14:52:56 · answer #9 · answered by Dr.C 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
All the freedoms in the world are not going to benefit us if we allow them to infringe on our security.
2007-11-06 14:58:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋