Amazon.com Widgets

Should certain civil liberties be removed to defend national security?

  • No, civil liberties should not be removed to defend national security.

    Protecting the safety of the citizens of a country is crucial. However, the elimination of basic civil liberties is unnecessary to provide an appropriate level of protection for those citizens. Research by independent, bipartisan think tanks reveals that the abridgment of civil liberties in the name of national security does little or nothing to enhance the safety of citizens.

  • Civil liberties can be removed to some extent to protect national security.

    Even though the government has gotten a bad reputation recently for spying on people, their methods have helped to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. Many potential attacks such as car bombings were thwarted because surveillance methods allowed law enforcement officials to capture the terrorists before they could do harm, and in instances where surveillance failed such as with the Boston Marathon bombings, surveillance helped lead to quick capture of the terrorists.

  • No, there is no reason to infringe on civil liberties

    The danger to national security is greatly over-hyped. Civil liberties should not be infringed upon on removed under the guise of national security. All that removing these liberties in the name of security does is create a state of fear and tension among citizens while giving the government more power to reach into individual lives.

  • No, the country ceases to become a free state if civil liberties are removed in favor of national security.

    No, civil liberties should not be removed in the interests of national security. I believe that we would cease to live in a free society if the government is allowed to encroach upon our freedoms in order to defend itself. Removing civil liberties is a fast track to creating a police state where the government has a disproportionate amount of power.


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