Amazon.com Widgets

Is it justifiable to violate certain civil liberties in the name of national security?

  • Why wouldn't we trust our government?

    I feel it's important because in the long run it could help us a lot, even though it may seem like a bad idea when it happens at first. The government will think about everything that happens in the long run and find the best decision. Have faith in the government.

  • 3000 people perished on 9/11 is not enough to grasp the concept of safety in time of war?

    War against terror is a real war, but people don't perceive it as such, because it is different from traditional wars. In times of extreme danger, for the safety of our nation it is vital to use extreme measures to protect the country until the level of danger subside. How many people have to die until this simple concept is assimilated? 3000 people on 9/11 is not enough?

  • i strongly support

    most civilians dont know whats good for them they voted for their government so let the government take care of the security of a nation. limiting their liberties is a small price to pay to protect their own civilians. for example during a war the government can take away the civilian freedom of movement and ake them to a safe area so they wont be hutr

  • Yes is it justifiable because national security protects our ability to practice our rights.

    Without National Security, we would be under constant attack and there would be no one that would want to practice our rights. If you are not safe then there is no reasons to have rights. Without National Security we would be overtaken and probably killed. National Security protects us and our rights.

  • we elected these people

    The government was formed on the basis of representatives in electoral college because we don't know what is good for us. Is it worth being able to say something in return for harming others? It is extremely selfish and unnecessary loss of lives. The government is taking away your thoughts and if they do violate rights it is for a brief period of time. Everyone could use some patience anyway.

  • They are just trying to do their job by keeping us safe

    According to Thomas Hobbes the unwritten social contract was based on the exchange of individual liberty for group safety and social order. People still have the ability to enjoy the basic freedoms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but the government still has to do its job as protecting its citizens.

  • I agree with violating certain civil liberties in the name of national security.

    I would not say violate civil liberties, but rather limit some civil liberties in the name of national security, because the community rights overcome the individual rights. So in the case that limiting a civil liberty of an individual will protect the rights of a community, I think its totally acceptable. An example of this is arresting a criminal, in the name of community safe. You are limiting the right of the criminal to come and go, in behalf of the community right to live in an secure society.

    Posted by: IandbardeI
  • to keep my country and its communities safe yes is it

    If some is slandering or belittling someone in public today the person usually reacts in violence or in just as belittling matter. If this was to happens in public today the police may be called to help come down the two parties if there was no violence ,but no arrested could be made and the conflict would continue and my turn in to a huge conflict with many people and cause acts of terrible violence on and from both parties. If we put a limit on what people can say about people or at least the way they could say it in public there would be less verbal and physical violence among our communities because would be less quick at the mouth because one wrong word could cause them jail time.
    Also if we put a limit on peoples freedom of speech then is would help home land security control on what can be announced into the international public; Our country secrets, it people, and our president would be a lot safer if we could put so locks on some of this countries loosed lipped officials who could expose us and jeopardize our nations safety.

  • While I agree with Ben Franklin, who said "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither", there should be limits, specifically within the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

    Two words: Bradley Manning. If the military had done a more thorough background check, then they would have discovered that he was gay, that he was angry over the Army's DADT policy, and, therefore, a threat to national security.

    Posted by: AutomaticKenny
  • According to me, it is justifiable to violate civil liberties if it is mandatory for national security.

    According to me, national security must be given top priority over civil liberties. For example, if we consider privacy, it must be compromised in some circumstances to ensure national security, as we can't give guarantees that every citizen behaves responsibly towards our nation's interests. If we suspect that one person is helping the extremists for his own interests, it is mandatory to intrude into his personal dealings.

    Posted by: ElectricJude60
  • Security from whom?

    When the government of the strongest, most arrogant nation on the planet Earth becomes so tyrannical that it hides behind the term "national security" to promote it's own agenda, disregarding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights for it's own end, then it's time for the people to stand up and say no more! This kind of government we have today it exactly the government we fought against for independence over 200 years ago. Doesn't anyone see the similarities here? Wake up sheeple!

  • No invasion of my personal privacy, electronic data collection, phone monitoring, internet search monitoring.

    I love my country but believe in the constitution that made us willing to fight and die for her over the years. It is obvious that the Patriot Act is the right to abuse Government oversight. The Patriot Act needs to be repealed and a clean slate of electronic assistance into Government monitoring established.

  • Just plain wrong!

    The fact that people would think that this is okay is quite sad. There is no possible way that innocent people would be completely safe through this system: seen in such examples as the United States Patriot Act during the 9/11 crisis. Either way we're all allowed our own opinions.

  • Strengthen Civil Liberties will Strengthen Security.

    Strengthening Civil Liberties will Strengthen National Security. There is no balance. By undermining Civil Liberties you are in effect weakening peoples' freedom and effectiveness to fight against security threats. It undermines the democratic process and voice of the people to speak truth to power. Also, undermining civil liberties in the name of strengthening security will give power to the state away from the citizenry.

  • It doesn't because it violates our civil rights.

    No "protection" is worth giving up your rights and liberties. If it is protected by the constitution, it CANNOT be infringed. For example, the patriot act is very unconstitutional and should be repealed already. And, as history proves, if you allow the government to take away one liberty, they will take away all of them.

  • No, the two go hand in hand.

    Liberty and National Security go hand in hand. Liberty is protected and sustained for the long run through National Security. National Security is achieved through the people's liberty. (If you think about it, slaves aren't secure) In a nation without liberty, the people are not secure. The people are the nation. Ergo, no National Security. Also, when the government takes away the people's rights to protect their lives, then the people have no control over their lives and are thus not safe. Their own government then becomes their enemy. Locke espoused all of this in a dissertation against Hobbes' economic principles.

  • HELL NO !

    The bill of rights and the following amendments were fought for with the founding fathers blood and sweat in our revolution to make sure what the British did to them won't happen again. When the government starts arresting people because of what they believe or what they say (too late) this violates our first amendment rights that made our country great and when will they stop. Suppressing the opposition gives the government more power and like in the past governments in history they want more power and oppress people more. And don't tell me it can't happen to the US, c'mon we're a super power... For how long exactly, we weren't a world player until the late 19th and early 20th century so 100-120 years tell me about how the 1500 year old roman empire is doing. People need to be able to say, believe, and post in the press what they want. The us just seized 20 AP journalists phone records for "national security," freedom of press what. If your trying to stop terrorism, using terror won't work. Its different terrorism is a movement not an army it can happen anywhere and the government started out with the middle east Islamic radicalist's now with "homegrown terrorists" the war has reached the home front but not by the obvious enemy, its ourselves, when their attacking and arresting part of "we the people" also how about that wedding in Pakistan when 50 innocent people died because there was a suspected terrorist in the building with a drone. What happens when drones fly over my block party being flown by a 20 something who just finished his black-ops game and is now in front of the screen that is flying the real drone but he's so used to playing cod that he can't tell the difference. I love our country not our government

  • Civil Liberties MUST NOT be given up for Safety

    Civil liberties make everyday life enjoyable and worth living. If they are sacrificed for "safety," then consider how "safe" you really are. Whoever is keeping you "safe" can do whatever they want with you and order you around to do anything at all. What is the point of living a life where no civil liberties exist and instead the strong force keeping you safe undoubtedly abuses there power to the point of dictatorship over time...

  • Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    A great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges.

    Our current morass is that we are worried more about offending others, be they illegals, criminals or belligerents, than of offending the Rights Endowed by the Creator. I thought we learned 70 years ago about the consequences of appeasement.

  • Not unless it's doing more harm than a police state would

    Most of the measure people take are ineffective and prone to abuse. It's far better to simply accept that sometimes bad things will happen.

    Those bad things are likely less bad than the abuses would be. Given enough opportunity for abuse, abuse will occur. Power corrupts, and I would only support a reduction of civil liberties if I thought it was less evil than someone actively abusing it and seeking ever more power.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Quan says2013-06-12T16:26:26.350
Why bother protecting civil liberties if you're just going to take them away yourself? Seems self-defeating. If we have no civil liberties left to protect, we do not need a government to protect them. This is when rebellion becomes a very real possibility.
onemanitoban says2014-05-27T05:09:44.407
"Those who sacrifice their freedom for security deserve neither"