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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Bullies are never liked. They are feared or at best ignored and avoided.
Bullies always attract aggression. Many people in the US government benefit personally from fighting wars overseas.
A powerful country with only two peaceful neighbors, fighting over 70 wars since WW2 to prevent others from attacking it.. Really? Giving up liberties to counter understandable blow-back ?
How annoying. I am embarrassed for the government and those who support it.
Because the taking away of our civil liberties is a diabolical plan of the global "elite" and most "terrorist" attacks on our soil are carried by our own "secret" government with just those intentions to do so, so that they can carry on with their de-population agenda via FEMA camps (Nazi camps).
It all amounts to whether you are OK with giving up your freedoms for more security. Its a quality of life issue to me. I don't want to live in a box!
Society needs to realize that they have to think of self protection first as you can not count of others or the government all the time.
This nation was built on precepts explicitly limiting the scope of governmental involvement in individuals' lives and livelihoods - any impingement upon individuals' civil liberties represents a subversion of the nation. This question's dichotomy - liberty versus national security - is a false dichotomy: without liberty, the nation ceases to exist as a coherent entity. Rephrased: Is it possible to justify the violation of civil liberties without creating a police state?
Terrorism's effectiveness doesn't come from terrorist acts; it comes from our reactions to it. We need leaders who aren't terrorized. Less "security theatre". More good intelligence (how many native Arab speakers are there in the FBI/CIA?). Better emergency response. The TSA is a joke, as is the no-fly list. Read Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear".
Real prevention and effective response, not knee-jerk reaction from politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. I dream of a politician saying on air "Hold on a minute - it's too early to make a call. Let's not be intimidated or rushed"
We have our own rights and privacy. They have no right to touch us if we don't want them to. They are violating our rights by checking our bags, clothes, etc. How would you feel if they took you through a naked scanner? It is like losing your dignity! I am saying national security should lower down their thorough checks.