- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.
Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
Highlighted word makes you wrong.I never understood why people oppose it.
The PATRIOT Act just lets government agencies exchange information among themselves. For example, the FBI can inquire about what books you borrowed from a library.
Wow... so amazing. :fart2
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.
Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
we live in a society.
that means we find a balance between Freedoms & Security.
I think the USA, as of right now, is at a good balance.
sure, we could tweek our freedoms a little so we had more. But we also could tweek our security requirements so we'd be a little safer.
Ben Franklin was WRONG, when he suggested that those who sacrifice some liberty for some security, deserve neither.
this is what an intelligent modern society does.
except that he didn't say some... There has always been a balance. Without it there would be complete anarchy. Anarchy in of itself is quite destructive, but what is even worse is that anarchy is always a short lived process leading to some sort of dictatorship and a fascist state which arises from the ashes.we live in a society.
that means we find a balance between Freedoms & Security.
I think the USA, as of right now, is at a good balance.
sure, we could tweek our freedoms a little so we had more. But we also could tweek our security requirements so we'd be a little safer.
Ben Franklin was WRONG, when he suggested that those who sacrifice some liberty for some security, deserve neither.
this is what an intelligent modern society does.
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.
Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
I consider it entirely appropriate to sacrifice liberty for security, I simply demand a reasonable cost benefit ratio.
The Patriot Act....? I don't think it's effected Maggie one iota -- nor anyone I know. Unless the TSA is part of it, then that? It's a pain in the ass. (Excuse my ignorance on whether or not it's a part of it.)
That. And I also believe that some very basic standards should not be sacrificed.
When the executive has the power to kidnap mere suspects from the streets, detain them for years, deny them a fair trial and torture them, without any court required to prove their guilt, without any institution being able to do anything against it ... that is going waaaaay too far and calls for abuse.
Trading some intrusion on privacy for security is one thing, but violating the very basic principle that a suspect must not be punished until proven guilty, and that every suspect has the right on legal assistance and a fair trial, should be off the table.
Some rights are just too fundamental to be traded for security.
The Patriot Act....? I don't think it's effected Maggie one iota -- nor anyone I know. Unless the TSA is part of it, then that? It's a pain in the ass. (Excuse my ignorance on whether or not it's a part of it.)
Agreed. What - basic standards - do you believe should be sacrificed? and how do you qualify such standards? If you mean sacrifice durng time of social crisis, as in habeas corpus being suspended during our civil war, or quartering the Japanese: to protect them - and us, during the war, then yes, I see your point.
Can you elaborate?
I don't think the very basic constitutional standards of freedom and liberty should ever be traded for security. For example, that the government must not detain people without an accusal and a due legal process. Or fair and free elections. Or freedom of the media from censorship.
Of course there can be different interpretations when different rights are in conflict. For example when it comes to libel, slander or instigation of a crime: Where exactly do you draw the line to free speech? But the debate about that line is an entirely different animal than abandoning free speech.
I'm not sure about social crisis. But I think a free society can do well and is strong enough without too fundamental restrictions even in a crisis. At any rate, I don't think the US and the West were really fundamentally threatened after 9/11, unlike the US in the Civil War, for example.
So I guess I'd rather err on the side of freedom than on the side of security.
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.
Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.
Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?