Amazon.com Widgets

Is national security more important than freedom?

Asked by: MrDJL
  • Can we trust our government???????????

    I don't think we care all that much about our government going though our privacy I think it's the ? Of can we trust our government with the info they find about us not to black mail or try to steal or buy our property. Like if they found out though the presidents phone he's gay and black mail him but national security will save a lot of people

  • Yes national security is important

    We need national security! Without it our country could be in danger! National security comes first, and then our freedom. Would u rather be free but at the pinnacle of danger every day? You could be free, but be in fear that the roof under your head won't sustain the terror beyond the walls of your house

  • National Security is way more important

    Ever since 9/11, the Unites States has become paranoid of terrorist attacks. Because of this, they now access almost everything we do. As long as we’re online, we could be tracked at all times. So, is this the right thing for the government to do? Well, according to the Constitution of the United States of America, the government has to “promote the general welfare” of its citizens. The word “privacy” is never stated in the Constitution, so it technically is not a fundamental right. Recall the Boston bombing, for example. The two bombers allegedly used the internet to research how to create the explosives. What if the government had viewed their internet history and saw such suspicious activity. Maybe then three people wouldn’t have died, one of those being an 8-year-old boy. Maybe then sixteen people wouldn’t have become amputees, the youngest being a 7-year-old girl. Maybe 260 people wouldn’t have been injured and permanently disabled. Something as simple as viewing search histories of civilians could save us from a great amount of lost lives. Should we be willing to trade something so precious for privacy?

  • Security is important

    “It appears that the privacy of citizens as some see it is far more important than using any means necessary to keep track of anyone who may have intentions of doing harm to the country. Would people prefer the NSA stop all it has been doing and President Obama sign off on that? If we had another attack like 9/11. Would those same people be screaming, “Where were the NSA and why wasn’t President Obama doing more to protect us?” My thinking is yes, that is exactly what they would be doing.

  • It is important to create a safe environment.

    Whilst freedom is an inherent part of modern-day society, it is just as important, if not more for national security to be preserved. If that means our emails are checked, our phone calls are monitored or our internet profiles are eyed upon, it is still important for us to be guaranteed that safety. At the end of the day, it is vital to remember, that these people who are monitoring our calls and messages etc. Will never be met by the public and if you do happen to meet them, chances are slim, you will never know that these people are doing these trusted actions.

    At any point we could be targeted as a nation, city or community, it is important to gather as much information for these things to prevent attacks and other atrocities. Sure, freedom remains a key institution in society, but let us remember that without these integral interventions we would have no society to live in.

    Take for example, the unknown event of the Vermont Bomb Plot of 2002 Six "terrorists" had been planning a bomb plot, whereby they would go to Vermont center and lay four bombs, each placed at different places. The government only knew of this as they had discussed of their plans prior to the event via email and on phone conversations.

    It is also worth noting that nearly 60% of foiled acts of terrorism have been stopped through this act of monitoring.

    As many of you will not probably read this, I have taken into account the length of my argument and thus reduced my word output, if however any of you wish to argue further, please do not hesitate to comment.

  • The two are not interrelated

    When an issue like this arises, you need to look at both sides. The most recent report has shown that our surveillance has prevented "numerous plane crashes, suicide bombings, building bombings, and assassinations of people of high importance". And also, they say that in no way is this what people think it is. In fact, most surveillance is by machine looking for key words or phrases. It's not like your phone is being listened to by some agent. On the other hand, people should be able to say what they want without feeling like they are being watched. But here's what it comes down to: if you are not talking about something to do with a threat or attack on the United States, they don't have authority to listen to you. They can't bring you to court if you confess over the phone you killed someone... They are only looking for intelligence on national threats. This isn't as limiting to freedom as most people think. It helps much more than it takes away.

  • Of course not

    Nation is fictive. Naturally, there are no nations. There are families, we can even say there are local communities, let's say villages, but every nation is made-up. And nothing, especially not something as important as freedom, which is real, can be sacrificed in order for something, which does not exist.

  • We are free Men and Women

    If we are not able to be free why is this country called the "free country"? With the national security claiming they are more important than liberty that's basically saying that we are their slaves and they are the drivers we shouldn't be spied on by the NSA just because of 9/11 or the Boston Marathon Bombing. Why is there reason to can't they just run checks for certain words?

  • Not A Chance

    "Any Person who gives a little liberty for safety, shall deserve neither and receive none." Removing freedoms in the sake of National Security is the biggest threat to national security there is. The United States was founded on the principal of liberty not safety. I fear the day where we surrender our freedoms in the name of anything. Tyranny though has a certain way of making people cherish the freedoms that so easily surrendered.

  • Not At All

    This country was not established with safety. The intent was for this country to be free, and for our citizens to live in a society where we have a say in government, and most important, freedom. Benjamin Franklin Once said " A man that would give up his rights for safety deserves neither".

  • An Increasingly Authoritarian State + MilitaryIndustrial Complex out of control spending on National Defence takes freedom and an oppressive regime is hardly worth living in.

    This system would create too much misery. We have read Orwell, we can see the future of a totalitarian regime if the national Security continues to increase in the West. The Elite can easily control the populace by stoking fear with increased National Security Budgets. I The Rich Would eventually be worshipped and the poor would be keep in total fear perpetually. I want to also add that much of that money could be well spent. Think how many billions are wasted on armaments like Nukes that will never be used.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.