Teneur
06-10-2006, 07:28
Undoubtedly the topic of giving up freedom for security, or vice versa, is a popular one these days. This debate particularly applies to the current situation in the United States of America.
First we should look at what would cause this issue to come up, and any historical precedence. One issue could be times of crisis. There's is factual historical evidence that in times of political, economic, or social crises the people will look to a strong or charismatic leader to give them the direction, security, and answers they seek. This occurred in the late 1920's and early 1930's in both Germany and Italy. The rise of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was in response to national humiliation, economic collapse, and an increasing threat from radical left-wing ideologies.
Under those two leaders both countries adopted policies of curtailing personal freedoms in the name of increasing national security and safety. In the case of Germany under Hitlers rule, this went so far as to completely disenfranchise ethnic minorities to 'protect' proper German citizens. Hilter and Mussolini both started off offering their private armies, the SA and Blackshirts, to break up communist and socialist rallies and supporters. They both saw these groups as a threat to their respective nations. We all know what became of both regimes. They embroiled themselves in an extremely costly war, which cost them their lives in the end.
Now for more recent events. The face of the United States of America has changed dramatically since September 11th, 2001. First came the USA PATRIOT Act, and now the recently passed Detainee Bill (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502146). The passing of these legislations have been touted in the name of providing security for the American people, and providing the tools needed for efficient apprehension and elimination of persons whom wish to commit terrorist acts against the people of the United States. However, both of these bills have come under increasing criticism. They undoubtedly give up civil liberties and personal freedom in the name of security.
Another example would be the October Crisis of 1970 here in Canada. The October Crisis was a period in October of 1970 in which the radical socialist and separatist terrorist group, the FLQ (Quebec Liberation Front) kidnapped British trade minister James Cross and Quebec vice-premier Pierre Laporte, the latter of which was later found murdered in the trunk of car. They also planted small explosive devices in mailboxes and various other places. During the height of the crisis the then-Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, enabled the War Measures Act which gave emergency powers to the executive government and stopped just short of martial law. Police could search property without warrants, they could detainee any person without just cause for an indefinite time, and the Military could be used to patrol the streets and participate in police raids. During the time the war Measures Act was in effect 497 people were detained, 435 of which were later released. Once the leaders of the FLQ were grated asylum in Cuba the War Measures Act was retracted.
It appears that, unless the people in power are careful, reducing peoples freedoms will lead to more and more oppressive legislations and regimes. Do bills such as the Patriot Act and the Detainee Bill actually make the average US citizen safer? Is such emergency power such as the War Measures Act justified? Is giving up personal freedoms justified in the name of providing better security during times of crisis?
First we should look at what would cause this issue to come up, and any historical precedence. One issue could be times of crisis. There's is factual historical evidence that in times of political, economic, or social crises the people will look to a strong or charismatic leader to give them the direction, security, and answers they seek. This occurred in the late 1920's and early 1930's in both Germany and Italy. The rise of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler was in response to national humiliation, economic collapse, and an increasing threat from radical left-wing ideologies.
Under those two leaders both countries adopted policies of curtailing personal freedoms in the name of increasing national security and safety. In the case of Germany under Hitlers rule, this went so far as to completely disenfranchise ethnic minorities to 'protect' proper German citizens. Hilter and Mussolini both started off offering their private armies, the SA and Blackshirts, to break up communist and socialist rallies and supporters. They both saw these groups as a threat to their respective nations. We all know what became of both regimes. They embroiled themselves in an extremely costly war, which cost them their lives in the end.
Now for more recent events. The face of the United States of America has changed dramatically since September 11th, 2001. First came the USA PATRIOT Act, and now the recently passed Detainee Bill (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502146). The passing of these legislations have been touted in the name of providing security for the American people, and providing the tools needed for efficient apprehension and elimination of persons whom wish to commit terrorist acts against the people of the United States. However, both of these bills have come under increasing criticism. They undoubtedly give up civil liberties and personal freedom in the name of security.
Another example would be the October Crisis of 1970 here in Canada. The October Crisis was a period in October of 1970 in which the radical socialist and separatist terrorist group, the FLQ (Quebec Liberation Front) kidnapped British trade minister James Cross and Quebec vice-premier Pierre Laporte, the latter of which was later found murdered in the trunk of car. They also planted small explosive devices in mailboxes and various other places. During the height of the crisis the then-Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, enabled the War Measures Act which gave emergency powers to the executive government and stopped just short of martial law. Police could search property without warrants, they could detainee any person without just cause for an indefinite time, and the Military could be used to patrol the streets and participate in police raids. During the time the war Measures Act was in effect 497 people were detained, 435 of which were later released. Once the leaders of the FLQ were grated asylum in Cuba the War Measures Act was retracted.
It appears that, unless the people in power are careful, reducing peoples freedoms will lead to more and more oppressive legislations and regimes. Do bills such as the Patriot Act and the Detainee Bill actually make the average US citizen safer? Is such emergency power such as the War Measures Act justified? Is giving up personal freedoms justified in the name of providing better security during times of crisis?