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
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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!

  • Fear vs. Truth

    When a government uses fear and manipulation to control, abuse and lie to it's people, it has lost it's true reason for being, and has created a valid and necessary reason to remove it. This imperative is akin to any sane person removing a parasite from it's body to save the whole from infection.

    To use "national security" as an excuse to cover up anything the government does not want public, whether it is illegal or legal has gotten so far out of control that nobody even questions it anymore. If you do, you are labeled as unpatriotic or something like that, when in fact it is our duty as well as our responsibility to question our leaders and our government!

    When our "trusted servants" become liars and propagators of deception and fear mongering to keep the masses ignorant and afraid then it's time for the people on the YES side of this questionnaire to pull their heads out of the sand and WAKE UP!!!

  • Founding Fathers

    The founding fathers warned about depending on the government for security. Ben Franklin indeed said that "Those that would sacrifice liberty for security will in the end have neither, nor deserve neither."
    We must respect The Constitution as it is the only true safeguard for our freedoms and liberties.
    “The greatest danger to American Freedom is a government that ignores and perverts the Constitution”- Thomas Jefferson

  • Of course not

    Every human being has certain civil liberties! It says so under our Constitution. So how dare anyone take them away from us? That's like taking away your child's computer because they wrote an essay that you don't agree with. Our government laid down one set of rules and now thinks they have the right to just go and tell us that we have no rights at all. What the heck is wrong with that picture? Don't all of you want you given civil liberties? I certainly do!

  • It is never acceptable to take away liberty for security.

    It is time we take that option off the table. Our liberties are the only thing that sets this nation apart. Without them, we have no unique nation. If the government can violate our liberties for ANY reason whatsoever then it will inevitably abuse that power. People are sovereign beings and imbued with certain inalienable rights from our creator. Any government that would try to take that away should not be tolerated.

  • No!definitly not.and it never should!!!

    Because it is unfair.When someone violates your rights that is totally unfair.Its even worse when you have no representation in parliament!the least they could do is to give them at least a little bit of representation in parliament.All of Parliament must have been drinking!And then they hit the 13 colonies with tons of taxes!

  • You cannot protect humanity from humanity

    I cannot fathom that any individual or group of individuals would begin to presume that they are capable of saving humanity from itself. No matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many folks designated to enforce those laws, one cannot extinguish the desire within humans to rebel, to feel, or to possess and effect an ideal. As long as humans can think, and have ideas without voicing them, there will always be people that disagree with government, or plot an attack of cowardice on a multitude of innocents, or hold thoughts and plans of evil.

    The ends cannot justify the means. To claim that they can, is the worst form of hypocrisy. Enagaging in terrorism to fight terrorism is asinine and it assumes that those responsible for the "counter-terrorism" are of a higher moral capacity and are above that law which prohibits terrorism in the first place.

  • Absolutely not

    How does anyone believe that taking away rights of the citizens makes anyone any safer? The constitution, the decleration of independence, and the bill of rights were written to bestow kn the American citizens certain unalienable rights. These men wrote these documents after fighting for there independence from a tyrannical over controling government the same of which exists in America today. They wrote these documents to make sure that the citizens had the right to protect themselves the means to do so with the right to bear arms and the right to take back control of an tyranic socialist government. It is our rights that make us a free country and to willing give those up is to give up your freedom. Why is it that our fore fathers saw our government getting out of control back in the 1700s and the citizens that it is happening right in front of are to stupid to realize it. All who sign the side that says it is ok to give up some need to google the US CONSTITUTION and read it. It was written for the people by the people giving you rights they knew you might need some day. The right to bear arms was given so we could protect ourselves from a government trying to take our rights. Remember who wrote it and when. A group of patriots who just fought a government trying to take their rights. WAKE UP AMERICA OUR GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR LIBERTIES!

Research this topic: United States, Barack Obama
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.