NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13958508/

I like this judge. :)

Here's a part that troubles me:

“The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one,” Walker said. “But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.”


How do you balance liberty vs security?

How do you balance liberty vs security?
Very, very carefully. Personally I lean towards liberty over security. The state has a duity to work towards security, obviously, but liberty should trump security in most situations.

Do not compromise one for the other

Do not compromise one for the other

What if we have to?

What if we have to?

Liberty should win.

What do I want with security, if there's not freedom to enjoy it. Example: I travelled to Vienna. Beautiful city, very clean, felt very safe. In the evening, after walking the whole day, I sat down infront of a historic building and put my feet up on the same stair as I was sitting on. I was approached by the police and told to not do so. Laughing at this a bit, I was threatened to be taken to the station. Now, Vienna seems to be a very safe place...but at what costs? I rather have some beggars and muggers around, than not being able to sit down wherever I want.

I know, it's a simplified example...but I think it represents the whole discussion pretty good. I'm always less concerned about security (provided by the state) than freedom (not limited by the state).

I'm tempted to instantly take the side of liberty, because I enjoy it.
But then I think what it would be like to be living in a warzone. The freedom to put my feet up in a public place kind of fades by comparison to a loved one taking a stray bullet.
The Western world is overall very very safe, and there's no way liberty should be diminished for more security at this point in time.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. I'd rather be in a fight for my life with a gun in one hand and a knife in the other than hope the cops will respond in time. I like the military as much as anyone but cellphones and begging won't stop bullets.

In a First World country, Liberty all the way.

The situation changes in a Third World country- maybe security would be best at a given time for a given place (ie look at Somalia)

actually, I see it as a dance. there are times when Security has to take the lead, but there are also times when Security must follow.

it's a constant ebb and flow... like the tides.

Ever since my security supposedly increased, I have seen no indication that I'm safer than I was before, because before I was safe and free, now I'm safe and less free. Besides if the news has shown us anything, the greatest threat to security is reporters. They've been sneaking knives on planes and then telling everyone how they did it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13958508/

I like this judge. :)

give me liberty..or give me death...no brainer.

i think cicero said...to kill a man is one thing..to shackle and cage him is another....liberty with the actual words,but the gist is...if you feel i am such a threat or malcontent,kill me..but dont chain me or cage me...which i agree with.

i would prefer death over shackles.

There are certainly cases where liberty isn't infringed on at all by security and can actually be increased because of it, and then there are situations where security can't help but limit liberty. The latter should be avoided at all costs.

"He who should sacrifice liberty to attain temporary security, shall find neither liberty nor security"

or so the saying goes. Come on people, we're not fighting the English anymore. It's the war on Terror. as for security vs. liberty, On the one hand, you could say we should never give up liberty for security. That would render our efforts to protect our citizens ineffective. And likewise should we sacrifice liberty for the sake of security, then we shall be a nation of fearful and oppressed individuals.
No, there is a compromise as is always the case. Some liberty must be sacrificed to increase safety. For example, the government in my opinion should be able to listen to the phone calls of suspected terrorists. If bin-Laden is calling up Americans, I hope to God our FBI and CIA are listening. And I have a reasonable level of trust that the government is not spying on everyday Americans. It doesn't have the ability to do so.
Second, library records and other such paper trails of suspected terrorists should be fair game for government investigation. Certain names from certain countries (as in a national terror database) is necessary to protect our naiton's air ports.
However, the government should not be allowed to go too far. It should not have much data on average American citizens unless there is cause to suspect them of collaborating with terrorists.
I also do not think something like Martial is desired...but sometimes it is necessary after destructive events (like Hurricanses, tsunamis, large scale terror attacks, invasions,) to maintain order (security). It is imperative that security or order be maintained in any society or it should fall into chaos. For example, if after Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard had not moved in and occupied New Orleans, then gangs of scavenger criminals would have gone into a rampage fighting for scarce resources and the temptation to profit from other's misfortunes. Therefore, in the interest of protecting order, private property, liberty and human life, sometimes you must sacrifice liberty in order to achieve security.

actually, I see it as a dance. there are times when Security has to take the lead, but there are also times when Security must follow.

it's a constant ebb and flow... like the tides.

It would be a beautiful thing if that is what actually occured, however if there is anything that our past has taught us it is that if Liberty is given up for Security then we quickly lose both* and the fact of the matter is, if Security is allowed to take the lead at all it will quickly take complete control. Example: We will give you back the Liberty once we get done with this - crap! Now this happened, so we will give it back after this... Oh wait! Cant forget this we promise to give it back once we get that done with... (before you know it..) what Liberty? Shut up and sit down. We are protecting you.


Foot note:

* "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

It would be a beautiful thing if that is what actually occured, however if there is anything that our past has taught us it is that if Liberty is given up for Security then we quickly lose both* and the fact of the matter is, if Security is allowed to take the lead at all it will quickly take complete control. Example: We will give you back the Liberty once we get done with this - crap! Now this happened, so we will give it back after this... Oh wait! Cant forget this we promise to give it back once we get that done with... (before you know it..) what Liberty? Shut up and sit down. We are protecting you.


Foot note:

* "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


amen

amen

Gracias, glad to know there are others of enlightenment with me. :)

In a First World country, Liberty all the way.

The situation changes in a Third World country- maybe security would be best at a given time for a given place (ie look at Somalia)


BTW somalia was invaded by ethiopia recently, wasn't it?

Come on people, we're not fighting the English anymore. It's the war on Terror. as for security vs. liberty, On the one hand, you could say we should never give up liberty for security. That would render our efforts to protect our citizens ineffective. And likewise should we sacrifice liberty for the sake of security, then we shall be a nation of fearful and oppressed individuals.
We in this wonderful day in age have technologies to protect people without violating their rights to Liberty. It's just getting the government to use those methods instead of the easier Big Brother ones..

No, there is a compromise as is always the case. Some liberty must be sacrificed to increase safety.
See the quote I have in foot note in my second to last post.

Second, library records and other such paper trails of suspected terrorists should be fair game for government investigation. Certain names from certain countries (as in a national terror database) is necessary to protect our naiton's air ports.
What if they dont use their real names? :eek:

However, the government should not be allowed to go too far. It should not have much data on average American citizens unless there is cause to suspect them of collaborating with terrorists.
Who exactly would monitor this? The government? When will we know its going too far until its already too late?

We in this wonderful day in age have technologies to protect people without violating their rights to Liberty. It's just getting the government to use those methods instead of the easier Big Brother ones..


See the quote I have in foot note in my second to last post.


What if they dont use their real names? :eek:


Who exactly would monitor this? The government? When will we know its going too far until its already too late?


jeez..i like you.

lol, thus far from what I have read in your posts I tend to agree with you as well, and I hope we continue our interactions.

BTW somalia was invaded by ethiopia recently, wasn't it?
Well....

Its like having Tyson vs. Holyfield in the ring, but the next stadium over has oiled up gay midget wrestling. It'll be over before anyone knows what happens.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5204212.stm

A Somali Islamist leader has ordered a "holy war" to drive out Ethiopian troops, after they entered the country to protect the weak interim government.
"I am calling on the Somali people to wage a holy war against Ethiopians in Somalia," said Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of the Union of Islamic Courts.

Ethiopia denies that its forces are in the government's base of Baidoa, but a BBC reporter has seen them patrolling.
.....

But Ethiopia is strongly opposed to the Islamists and has repeatedly warned that it will send its army into Somalia if the interim government is attacked.

....
Ethiopia has been a long-term ally of President Abdullahi Yusuf and in the 1990s helped him defeat an Islamist militia led by Mr Aweys.

Both liberty and security should be maximized as much as possible, with liberty being weighted in its favor.

No one else thinks of Hobbes when this discussion crops up? No?

War of all against all.

The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Strange....

We in this wonderful day in age have technologies to protect people without violating their rights to Liberty. It's just getting the government to use those methods instead of the easier Big Brother ones..


See the quote I have in foot note in my second to last post.


What if they dont use their real names? :eek:

Well, since in order to get on a plane you need a passport...


Who exactly would monitor this? The government? When will we know its going too far until its already too late?

Don't be riddculous. It would be monitored by a panel made up of Fidel Castro, Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon Dynamite, John Cleese, Jesus Christ, an irate pastry, and the Muffin Man.

It would be a beautiful thing if that is what actually occured, however if there is anything that our past has taught us it is that if Liberty is given up for Security then we quickly lose both* and the fact of the matter is, if Security is allowed to take the lead at all it will quickly take complete control. Example: We will give you back the Liberty once we get done with this - crap! Now this happened, so we will give it back after this... Oh wait! Cant forget this we promise to give it back once we get that done with... (before you know it..) what Liberty? Shut up and sit down. We are protecting you.


Foot note:

* "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759and there are points in history where Security given up for Liberty also results in a loss of both.

[in the same exaggerated vein as your example. :p ]

"California was nuked by terrorists, why didn't we see this coming."
"Gee sir, we cannot tap phones, cannot follow anyone, cannot investigate or probe into anyones background, can't do anything unless we have solid proof that they are terrorists. "
"Why can't we get this proof?"
"Well, sir, in order to get this proof, we need to get wiretaps, follow people, do background checks and investigate those we suspect are terrorists."
"And the problem is..."
"We only SUSPECT they are terrorists, we have no PROOF, so we cannot Wiretap, investigate, or do anything that will inhibit their percieved liberties untill we get that proof... in other words, the only proof the courts will accept to give us permission for us to investigate is that they have to sign a legal deposition saying that they are indeed involved with terrorist activity, signed and witnessed by their legal council and two unbiased witnesses."

Well, since in order to get on a plane you need a passport...

Ever hear of falsified documents? :eek:

Don't be riddculous. It would be monitored by a panel made up of Fidel Castro, Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon Dynamite, John Cleese, Jesus Christ, an irate pastry, and the Muffin Man.
LOL!!! Awesome!

Ever hear of falsified documents? :eek:

Which is why we need an international DNA database for identification purposes.

LOL!!! Awesome!

For example, the government in my opinion should be able to listen to the phone calls of suspected terrorists.
"Your a terrorist (with no evidence of course, that's why we "need" to tap your phone). Let's arbitrarially listen to your phone calls." :rolleyes:

And I have a reasonable level of trust that the government is not spying on everyday Americans.
Sorry, I don't.

Second, library records and other such paper trails of suspected terrorists should be fair game for government investigation.
The government should have no right to know what I read or think (i.e. read). Also, you're getting the order reversed. How do we have evidence of the "terrorists" if we don't check the records of everyone? Then we're just invading privacy.

Certain names from certain countries (as in a national terror database) is necessary to protect our naiton's air ports.
Wow... Racism (Namism?) anyone?

However, the government should not be allowed to go too far. It should not have much data on average American citizens unless there is cause to suspect them of collaborating with terrorists.
I fail to see how this works... You don't want to government to spy on everyone, but somehow they're supposed to know who is "collaborating with terrorists"? How 'bout we just leave everyone alone?

I also do not think something like Martial is desired...but sometimes it is necessary after destructive events (like Hurricanses, tsunamis, large scale terror attacks, invasions,) to maintain order (security) It is imperative that security or order be maintained in any society or it should fall into chaos. For example, if after Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard had not moved in and occupied New Orleans, then gangs of scavenger criminals would have gone into a rampage fighting for scarce resources and the temptation to profit from other's misfortunes. Therefore, in the interest of protecting order, private property, liberty and human life, sometimes you must sacrifice liberty in order to achieve security..
This is completely different than spying on everyday citizens with no evidence and invading their privacy. Unless of course the government puts the country under a constant state of Martial Law... :rolleyes: You're confusing two seperate issues.

Which is why we need an international DNA database for identification purposes.considering that people find a drug test involving Urine testing to be an invasion of privacy, I wish you luck in trying to convince them that a DNA database isn't a removal of Liberty.

and there are points in history where Security given up for Liberty also results in a loss of both.

[in the same exaggerated vein as your example. :p ]

"California was nuked by terrorists, why didn't we see this coming."
"Gee sir, we cannot tap phones, cannot follow anyone, cannot investigate or probe into anyones background, can't do anything unless we have solid proof that they are terrorists. "
"Why can't we get this proof?"
"Well, sir, in order to get this proof, we need to get wiretaps, follow people, do background checks and investigate those we suspect are terrorists."
"And the problem is..."
"We only SUSPECT they are terrorists, we have no PROOF, so we cannot Wiretap, investigate, or do anything that will inhibit their percieved liberties untill we get that proof... in other words, the only proof the courts will accept to give us permission for us to investigate is that they have to sign a legal deposition saying that they are indeed involved with terrorist activity, signed and witnessed by their legal council and two unbiased witnesses."

I am not saying get rid of security by all means. I am saying that those rights to Liberty, Justice and Privacy are ones that should be kept above the needs of security. If you need to bust in an apartment door, tackle a suspected terrorist and drag him into a courtroom, by all means go right on ahead. But once the power of the government goes beyond apprehension and it meddles in definition we will see some major abuse.

If they are allowed to define what a suspected terrorist is, then they will mark anyone who disagrees with them or is unfavorable in some fashion a suspected terrorist. Once they are labeled this the government will then have the freedom to do whatever it wished.

*Snip*

*Claps generously*

Thank you.

considering that people find a drug test involving Urine testing to be an invasion of privacy, I wish you luck in trying to convince them that a DNA database isn't a removal of Liberty.

Hey, it isn't mandatory. Only if you want to fly on a plane.

Hey, it isn't mandatory. Only if you want to fly on a plane.
Some people need to fly to work. Are you going to deny their right to work at a job they enjoy? What about their mobility rights? (Canadian I know, I think [read: hope] the US has something like that). How does a DNA database help prevent acts of terrorism? Anyone can become a terrorist. Look at Timmothy McVay. Should we then simply prevent everyone from flying?

Hey, it isn't mandatory. Only if you want to fly on a plane.
that makes it mandatory, for if the airline can demand it, so can cruise ships... then public docking facilities and also require it... then governments can for any boat entering their waters...

and if any International Mass Transit system wants to get involved...:rolleyes:

I am not saying get rid of security by all means. I am saying that those rights to Liberty, Justice and Privacy are ones that should be kept above the needs of security. If you need to bust in an apartment door, tackle a suspected terrorist and drag him into a courtroom, by all means go right on ahead. But once the power of the government goes beyond apprehension and it meddles in definition we will see some major abuse.and so you don't mind the government invading your privacy so that they can KNOW who's door to bust in and who to drag to court? and after apprehension, then what, no questioning to get information as to who else is invovled? no investigation ability on their part?

If they are allowed to define what a suspected terrorist is, then they will mark anyone who disagrees with them or is unfavorable in some fashion a suspected terrorist. Once they are labeled this the government will then have the freedom to do whatever it wished.careful, since it is a freedom to speak out against our own government, everyone who says anything remotely anti-goverment can then be defined as a terrorist. then once that list is compliled, (btw, look at how many Anti-America threads are here. ;) ) then you have to include all those who never speak out against America, (suspicious activities!)

I'm for the Temorary suspension of some liberties for security, just like I am for the temporary suspension of some Security for Liberties. again, a dance between the two.

and don't worry about Government not giving liberties back, like a pendulum, things will swing back to balance again.
so you end up with the Government spying on their own people, and given the right to kick down doors and drag people off.

When it comes to Liberty v. Security (or, if you prefer, Right v. Left), it's pretty obvious it doesn't matter how much you have of either, as long as they are both in equal quantities (how exactly are we measuring this?) to one another.

If you have more liberty than security, you get people free to mug, murder etc. More security than liberty, you get pointless oppression and a police state.
If one is considered more important/desirable than the other, no matter how slightly, it will lead to real problems.

Think of society as a constant struggle to balance these two factors exactly, 'cos that's where you get just as much liberty and security as you need. Too much of either and not enough of the other will be so so so much worse.

JuNii, I believe you misunderstood me, the things you just pointed out were the exact things I myself have said, except maybe the part about "not worrying because the government will give it back" I dont agree with that because what incentive would they have to give it back once they had the real thing?

Massmurder, I appreciate that reply as it does make me think.

The only point of security is to protect liberty from those, like criminals or foreign invaders, who would take it away. Security at the expense of liberty just misses the point. I would rather die, a free man, than live, a slave.

The only point of security is to protect liberty from those, like criminals or foreign invaders, who would take it away. Security at the expense of liberty just misses the point. I would rather die, a free man, than live, a slave.

Hmm, but liberty at the expense of security leads to (first thing that leaps to mind) Revolutionary France. Mob rule, anarchy, no respect for law.. erm, survival of the fittest.

"He who should sacrifice liberty to attain temporary security, shall find neither liberty nor security"


I would add: A World completely free, is a World completely secure.

I would add: A World completely free, is a World completely secure.

Unfortunately, its also a pipe dream.

JuNii, I believe you misunderstood me, the things you just pointed out were the exact things I myself have said, except maybe the part about "not worrying because the government will give it back" I dont agree with that because what incentive would they have to give it back once they had the real thing?

Massmurder, I appreciate that reply as it does make me think.
the incentive is the People. the People will get those freedoms back.

I think you do our Government a misservice in thinking that, you also do our People a misservice in thinking they will lay down and let the government run roughshod.

don't forget that the administration does change and so do situations.

that's why I agree with MassMurder and as I stated before, it's a dance, a constantly flowing movement of who leads and who follows.

I would add: A World completely free, is a World completely secure.
a world completely free isn't secure, it's anarchic and chaotic. where Might Makes Right.

and there are points in history where Security given up for Liberty also results in a loss of both.

[in the same exaggerated vein as your example. :p ]

"California was nuked by terrorists, why didn't we see this coming."
"Gee sir, we cannot tap phones, cannot follow anyone, cannot investigate or probe into anyones background, can't do anything unless we have solid proof that they are terrorists. "
"Why can't we get this proof?"
"Well, sir, in order to get this proof, we need to get wiretaps, follow people, do background checks and investigate those we suspect are terrorists."
"And the problem is..."
"We only SUSPECT they are terrorists, we have no PROOF, so we cannot Wiretap, investigate, or do anything that will inhibit their percieved liberties untill we get that proof... in other words, the only proof the courts will accept to give us permission for us to investigate is that they have to sign a legal deposition saying that they are indeed involved with terrorist activity, signed and witnessed by their legal council and two unbiased witnesses."

Absolute nonsense.

If you have enough evidence to cause reasonable suspicion than do what you do in EVERY OTHER SITUATION.

Get a god damned warrant.

I don't think anyone would go as far as to say "no wire tapping, for any reason, what so ever, never ever ever". Those of us who are against this situation say only this:

There is a system in place. It allows you to take the actions you feel necessary provided you have enough evidence to get a warrant. Once you have that evidence, present that evidence, and have that evidence validated, and, say it with me, GET A WARRANT, then you can tap your suspected terrorist's phone lines all you want. But to say "um....I think you're a terrorist, I'm going to listen into your calls" is a gross violation of our criminal justice system, and our constitution.

If you think I have ties to terrorism, present your evidence to a magistrate, let that magistrate evaluate that evidence, and procure a warrant.