This is a pretty common debate in the U.S. at the moment. We have always recognized a need to sacrifice some freedoms for the security of the nation during times of war - this is common to every civilization on the planet. This is even more pointed now that we are fighting an enemy we really cannot see. Americans - and foreigners of all nationality are now subject to greater scrutiny at airports and other sensitive areas, and the strange case of American's caught engaging in acts of terrorism or fighting against the United States has led to their denial of access to the courts. Few people argue that these are not germane to national security, and certainly these reforms are popular, but the question is how far is too far if we still want to remain a liberal democracy.
It's the same with Britain as well, Tony blair just recently unveiled a set of new measures to combat terrorism within the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4748717.stm) However already people are beginning to question just how much freedom they are willing to sacrifice in return for security from the state. (http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8075.asp).
So where do we draw the line?
The problem arises when the freedoms you sacrifice do not actually make you any more secure...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I dunno, terrorism is one of those things I really do not think we can totally avoid - even the administration isn't selling a 100% terror-proof plan. But there are certainly ways to prevent it from being as destructive as it could be. It's hard to gage if the Patriot Act has helped or if terrorists just haven't struck but ultimately does it matter if we are trading our national identity for security?
Salam
President Bush says that terrorists are fighting us because they hate our freedoms.
I agree with him.
But then he himself goes and many freedoms that Al Qaeda is suppose to be targeting.
I can only conclude, logically, that he is doing Bin Laden's job for him.
Omrow
Omrow, not completely wrong there.
The job of terrorists is to create terror. To upset a state into a frenzy that will cause them to start giving up their freedoms and to inspire terror among the people and spreading paranoia.
We're playing right into their hands.
Back in BLACK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536838.stm
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4536418.stm
[size=9]I NEVER WORE IT BECAUSE OF THE TALIBAN, MOTHER. I LIKE THE [b]MODESTY[/b] AND [b]PROTECTION[/b] IT AFFORDS ME FROM THE EYES OF MEN.[/size] [url=http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/Dust.html]Dust, X-Men[/url]
I love John McCain... thinking about joining up with his election campaign this year.
He's like a new Teddy Roosevelt - he's his own little miniparty.
there should be a poll. i choose freedom all the way we have enough rules and reg to contend with
i feel that it is the purpose of all governments to rule a nation that is controlled taking away freedoms and becoming their daddy is all aimed to fullfil this purpose
if it wasnt terrorist threats it would be something else
Salam
Spoken like a lioness.
Tipu Sultan of India once said: " It is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years like a jackal."
Omrow
Freedom's been splendid - let's give security a try for a bit!
Spice things up a bit.
I do not see it as a 'either', 'or' type of thing.
A lack of freedom will cause a lack of security.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Why are terrorist trying to destroy the US ?
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Salam
Its all to do with the clothes.
Omrow
They hate Sweden
why?
What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…
So what you're saying (hit the defensive, if someone opens with this line)
is that anyone who hates Sweden is a terrorist trying to destroy the US.
Omrow said something about clothes, but I'm not getting anythng.
Maybe its something to do with the Mexicans?
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
I blame the dutch!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salam
No. Mexicans have nothing to do with it.
Its all about garments. Think about it.
Omrow