Quantcast

Is it justifiable to violate certain civil liberties in the name of national security?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2012/05/30 04:18:23
Related Topics: Liberty, Security
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Steve King 2012/05/30 10:55:05
    No
    Steve King
    +6
    The Constitution protects us from this and people have been brainwashed to believe that giving up a Right is ok, so the ends justify the means.

    People forget, the Constitution was designed in the USA to tell us what the government can't do to us.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Elephant Lord 2012/07/04 06:15:24
    No
    Elephant Lord
    We did that during WWII, and that lead to the Japanese internment. wwii japanese internment wwii japanese internment wwii japanese internment
  • JohnnyRudick 2012/06/08 19:27:27
    Yes
    JohnnyRudick
    I have not seen that kind of situation yet.

    We have to be very careful about that kind of action.
    I do believe in "slippery slopes" and once you limit lawful actions by edict, where would it end?
    Not good for us for sure.
  • Icon 2012/06/03 13:38:36
    No
    Icon
    +1
    If they can violate one civil liberty in the name of national defense, what stops them from violating more?
  • Carl 2012/06/01 06:41:33
    No
    Carl
    +1
    A federal judge panel should be used as needed.
  • O'l Jarhead 2012/05/31 07:06:48
    No
    O'l Jarhead
    +1
    In some instances, it may ease criminal investagations but, I'd rather that all of us retain our civil liberties than make it easier for the police to abuse us just because they can.
  • Raithere 2012/05/31 04:54:18
    No
    Raithere
    +1
    A nation is it's citizenry, not a separate entity.
    Ergo, the violation of civil rights IS a threat to national security.
  • flyingseaturtle BN 2012/05/31 03:59:47
    No
    flyingseaturtle BN
    +1
    The constitution is there to limit the scope of our government. Each time we go against our principles it becomes easier it is to do it again ;-)
  • 3kidsandamom 2012/05/31 02:06:44
    No
    3kidsandamom
    +1
    Ben Franklin got it right when he said that those who give up freedoms for security will receive neither. I agree look around we have given up basic freedoms however we really are no safer today than we were 15 yrs ago!
  • swimmingswan 2012/05/30 23:30:55
    No
    swimmingswan
    +1
    GOOD THOUGHT
  • patriot88000 2012/05/30 22:58:22
    No
    patriot88000
    +1
    No, it is never justifiable to violate anybody's Civil Rights or Civil Liberties even in the name of National Security, but our government be it at the Federal, State or Local level does it all of the time. That is why it is our duty to expel our government and bring in a new Constitutional government that will abide by the Constitution.
  • Riobhca 2012/05/30 22:26:03 (edited)
    No
    Riobhca
    +1
    Those who would sacrifice their freedom for convenience and so-called safety are fit to be enslaved.
  • DDevlin780 2012/05/30 22:17:53 (edited)
    No
    DDevlin780
    +1
    Violate one, then the rest become easier. Stand up for the constitution, vote Obama out.
  • S and S 2012/05/30 21:55:07
  • nverumind 2012/05/30 19:45:18
    No
    nverumind
    +1
    "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
    Samuel Adams "Father of the American Revolution"
  • cynsity 2012/05/30 18:47:56
    Yes
    cynsity
    +1
    this isn't a yes no question.

    Of course in the USA where we have a Constitution and laws pertaining to "civil" liberties then no the US government shouldn't be voilating the US citizens....

    However if you examine these cases where such things as torcher have been used to extract information you will find that they have never happened in the USA or even in countries where simular civil laws and protection exist and if you also examine closely you will find that while directions were given by US operatives it was never a US citizen in any capasity doing the physical acts.

    Look we like to scream about how we shouldn't force our views on others we like to scream we should not engage in policing others and we like to point and blame when bad things happen to others but the fact is you can not impose on others our views of what is "civil" or "Humane" if you are not also willing to impose the first two and allow the thrid to happen.
  • cellophane cynsity 2012/05/30 20:17:28
    cellophane
    +1
    So let me see if I understand your argument. if the CIA flies into another country without a warrant, kidnaps a terrorist suspect, and takes him to a third country where they know torture is practiced; then the CIA kidnappers watch the torture and feed questions to the torturers; then the United States agents are innocent of torture?
  • cynsity cellophane 2012/05/30 20:35:14
    cynsity
    +1
    that's not what I am arguing.
    What I am saying is that the CIA doesn't NEED a warrant. a "warrent" is a US ideal so if the CIA were to fly into... say Great Britian then they would need a warrant issued by THAT government becasue while not the same GB has the laws which require a warrant but the country where they go to "kidnap" that "terrorist" may not have such laws AND may also practice kidnapping by law enforcement, that is THEIR laws, rule, way they play the game how ever you want to look at it. The CIA going to another contry and playing by that countries rules is correct (I am not saying right or good just correct) if that counrty then also would allow the taken person to be removed to another country well again that is THEIR way. That should not ever happen in the USA or in a country which has laws against such things

    My arguement is that if people want to cry foul about "fourcing US standards of "civil" on other nations" then they should not cry foul when we do not use US standards but the standards of the other countries. You can not make a cat bark you can not make a thing something other than it is unless you use force and trying to make another country/nation implement US standards is what everyone is decrying. So don't use that nations standards.

    Is it "RIGHT"...
    that's not what I am arguing.
    What I am saying is that the CIA doesn't NEED a warrant. a "warrent" is a US ideal so if the CIA were to fly into... say Great Britian then they would need a warrant issued by THAT government becasue while not the same GB has the laws which require a warrant but the country where they go to "kidnap" that "terrorist" may not have such laws AND may also practice kidnapping by law enforcement, that is THEIR laws, rule, way they play the game how ever you want to look at it. The CIA going to another contry and playing by that countries rules is correct (I am not saying right or good just correct) if that counrty then also would allow the taken person to be removed to another country well again that is THEIR way. That should not ever happen in the USA or in a country which has laws against such things

    My arguement is that if people want to cry foul about "fourcing US standards of "civil" on other nations" then they should not cry foul when we do not use US standards but the standards of the other countries. You can not make a cat bark you can not make a thing something other than it is unless you use force and trying to make another country/nation implement US standards is what everyone is decrying. So don't use that nations standards.

    Is it "RIGHT" I have no real opinion on that would it be better if every operitive of the USA stay true to the standards of the USA well to say that earns critisim of forcing views on others its a darned if you do darned if you don't situation.
    Currently my opinion is do what it takes to keep MY child safe because I do not care very much about anyone elses child and yes that is selfish and no its not very humane of me but I brought a child into the world and that child is my priority and if "violating" the "civil liberties" of someone in another nation who may not even recognize what a civil liberty is nor be even hesitant to violate MY child's rights and liberities will keep MY child safe them so be it.
    (more)
  • cellophane cynsity 2012/05/30 21:13:20
    cellophane
    +1
    >>>What I am saying is that the CIA doesn't NEED a warrant. a "warrent" is a US ideal so if the CIA were to fly into... say Great Britian then they would need a warrant issued by THAT government becasue while not the same GB has the laws which require a warrant<<<

    But the CIA did not have a warrant when it took suspects from Great Britain. In fact, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign secretary Jack Straw, and MI6 are currently being investigated for possible crimes related to CIA renditions.

    According to an article in the Britain's The Guardian dated 11 Apr 2012:

    Straw has said: "We were opposed to unlawful rendition. We were opposed to any
    use of torture. Not only did we not agree with it; we were not complicit in it and nor
    did we turn a blind eye to it."

    However, Straw has added: "No foreign secretary can know all the details of what its
    intelligence agencies are doing at any one time."

    Notice that they are being investigated for allowing the CIA to perform "unlawful rendition". (That means it's against the law there).

    The article went on to say:

    The US is preventing MPs [Ministers of Parliament] from seeing evidence of British
    involvement in the CIA's practice of secretly sending terror suspects to prisons
    where they faced torture.

    If Britain wanted a person a...



    >>>What I am saying is that the CIA doesn't NEED a warrant. a "warrent" is a US ideal so if the CIA were to fly into... say Great Britian then they would need a warrant issued by THAT government becasue while not the same GB has the laws which require a warrant<<<

    But the CIA did not have a warrant when it took suspects from Great Britain. In fact, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign secretary Jack Straw, and MI6 are currently being investigated for possible crimes related to CIA renditions.

    According to an article in the Britain's The Guardian dated 11 Apr 2012:

    Straw has said: "We were opposed to unlawful rendition. We were opposed to any
    use of torture. Not only did we not agree with it; we were not complicit in it and nor
    did we turn a blind eye to it."

    However, Straw has added: "No foreign secretary can know all the details of what its
    intelligence agencies are doing at any one time."

    Notice that they are being investigated for allowing the CIA to perform "unlawful rendition". (That means it's against the law there).

    The article went on to say:

    The US is preventing MPs [Ministers of Parliament] from seeing evidence of British
    involvement in the CIA's practice of secretly sending terror suspects to prisons
    where they faced torture.

    If Britain wanted a person arrested, why not arrest and prosecute him inside the country? If it's a matter of legal extradition, why does the CIA need to be involved?

    No, the CIA KIDNAPPED (not arrested) a British subject and secretly took him to Libya specifically to face torture so that the CIA and MI6 could gather intelligence from him. And when Britain was outraged and began an investigation into their leadership's role in these illegalities, the U.S. government protected its friends in Britain's intelligence agencies by refusing to help in the investigation.

    I'm thrilled that you want to protect your child. But I believe your and my government - a government unfazed by the concept of rule of law except as it applies to its subjects - are a far greater threat to your child today than all the terrorists in the world combined!
    (more)
  • cynsity cellophane 2012/05/30 21:29:21
    cynsity
    +1
    first off we are not SUBJECTS to our government. SUBJECTS are for GB. having putthat issue to the side...

    Blair and Straw are being INVESTIGATED and have been now for some 6 years with NO evidence having been found of such crimes so I tend to think no smoke no fire.

    As well this is agin NOT my arguement. IF we find facts to support teh charges that some kind of civil liberities were violated in GB then correct action should be taken. However, the agument doesn't change if you are going to play on your homefield you play by your rules you do not take your rules to the away field and force them to play by your rules because you end up being the looser either way.

    And the threat to my child comes less from what governments do on foreign soil to foreign combatants than what CITIZENS do with government to effectivly make everyone comply with what they want rather than what everyone's own liberties allow
  • cellophane cynsity 2012/05/31 06:01:31
    cellophane
    +1
    >>>first off we are not SUBJECTS to our government. SUBJECTS are for GB. having putthat issue to the side...<<<

    Read the National Defense Authorization Act and then repeat that again with a straight face.

    >>>Blair and Straw are being INVESTIGATED and have been now for some 6 years with NO evidence having been found of such crimes so I tend to think no smoke no fire.<<<

    We already have admission by the CIA that they did extraordinary (i.e. illegal) renditions. The only thing that GB hasn't been able to determine is whether its leadership was ignorant of the CIA's activities or whether it cooperated with them. The fact that the U.S. refuses to assist GB's investigation suggests to me that GB leadership was cooperating with the CIA's operations.
  • cynsity cellophane 2012/05/31 20:41:52
    cynsity
    +1
    you do know what makes us citizens and NOT subjects is clearly writen ... its called the second amendment and I could assure you that should tyranny strike a blow we CITIZENS will strike back far faster and far harder... so not only is my face straight so is my aim.

    And the CIA is a US entity which violated no US citizens liberties. And you may speculate all you like but specualtion does nothing at all. if it was so important to GB to learn things from teh US and the CIA they could use their full diplomatic and political clout to force the hand of teh USA that they do not that its taken this long to get so little should tell you more.
  • cellophane cynsity 2012/05/31 22:43:40
    cellophane
    +1
    >>>you do know what makes us citizens and NOT subjects is clearly writen ... its called the second amendment and I could assure you that should tyranny strike a blow we CITIZENS will strike back far faster and far harder... so not only is my face straight so is my aim.<<<

    I understand what the second amendment MEANS - but we have a nation of people sh*tting their pants over terrorism and begging the government to keep them safe. Have you read the Patriot Act that's been in force for the past 10 1/2 years? Have you read of the liberties we give up to the government under the premise of remaining safe from terrorism? And yet, other than a few "radicals" denouncing the implementation of these violations of our rights, the citizenry is happy to submit to them. And now we have the NDAA which would allow, among other atrocities, detention of American citizens on American soil without habeas corpus!

    So although we have a second amendment that gives us the right to be free of our government and have our government subject to us, in reality we are allowing the government to treat us as subjects. It isn't the Constitution that makes us subjects to the government - it is the citizens giving up their rights to the government that makes us subjects. And all the constitutional amendments in the world will not make a lick of difference so long as the people are willing to let the government do whatever is necessary to keep them safe.
  • cynsity cellophane 2012/05/31 23:02:57
    cynsity
    +1
    name one liberty lost by the patriot act (which I agree needs to be repealed)
    And if MORE people would use the second amendment they wouldn't be so worried about terriorist...

    And yes the PEOPLE have allowed government to get way out of hand but again right now nothing government is doing is having a direct effect on anyone's liberities. However if the PEOPLE continue to use government to supress others eventually they themselves will be supressed and as I said in past posts I am far less concerned with what anyone is doing to anyone else in foreign nations and far more concerned with how people are using government to slowly but surely enslave CITIZENS... and dependancy on government is slavery no matter how you cut
  • cellophane cynsity 2012/06/01 01:33:01
    cellophane
    +1
    If you're not aware of liberties being lost by the Patriot act, then why do you think it needs to be repealed?

    But I digress....from

    http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-v...

    Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. i.e. Freedom of association.

    US Patriot Act: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

    Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... i.e. Freedom of speech.

    US Patriot Act: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

    Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. i.e. Freedom from unreasonable searches

    ...













    If you're not aware of liberties being lost by the Patriot act, then why do you think it needs to be repealed?

    But I digress....from

    http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-v...

    Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. i.e. Freedom of association.

    US Patriot Act: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

    Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... i.e. Freedom of speech.

    US Patriot Act: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

    Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. i.e. Freedom from unreasonable searches

    US Patriot Act: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

    Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. i.e. Right to a speedy and public trial

    US Patriot Act: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

    Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. i.e. Right to legal representation

    US Patriot Act: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

    Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ... i.e. Right to liberty

    US Patriot Act: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

    Now do you understand my reasoning that even though the government is supposed to be subject to us, the reverse is currently true?
    (more)
  • cynsity cellophane 2012/06/01 03:07:17
    cynsity
    +1
    with or without the patriot act government can and always has "monitored" religion... how do you think the Branch Davidian incedent came about a decade before 9-11 and the Patriot act.... so as my students like to say (fail) but its a common arguement I hear all the time. You mistake (and reasonably so) monitoring with interfering with free exercise of... monitoring has been happening since the 1950s "red" scare (and really even before this as the inturnment camps of WWII proved) and we still went on even got better.

    In every case from small criminal/civil actions to class actions and supreme court decissions the information requested by subpoena are general conceled its known as subpoena duces tecum and is used to preserve chain of custody for documents so they can not be claimed as missing or out of availability. Your mistake is in believing that warrentless and unreasonable search (invation of privacy) has result in some judgement against the individual having his 4th amendment rights violated.

    I shall direct you two 4 cases which disprove your stance but again it is a reasonable mistake I hear often from people who find government far to intrusive. Katz V US: US v Jacobsen: Kyllo v US and Terry V Ohio. in each case the courts found in favor of the individual in respects...









    with or without the patriot act government can and always has "monitored" religion... how do you think the Branch Davidian incedent came about a decade before 9-11 and the Patriot act.... so as my students like to say (fail) but its a common arguement I hear all the time. You mistake (and reasonably so) monitoring with interfering with free exercise of... monitoring has been happening since the 1950s "red" scare (and really even before this as the inturnment camps of WWII proved) and we still went on even got better.

    In every case from small criminal/civil actions to class actions and supreme court decissions the information requested by subpoena are general conceled its known as subpoena duces tecum and is used to preserve chain of custody for documents so they can not be claimed as missing or out of availability. Your mistake is in believing that warrentless and unreasonable search (invation of privacy) has result in some judgement against the individual having his 4th amendment rights violated.

    I shall direct you two 4 cases which disprove your stance but again it is a reasonable mistake I hear often from people who find government far to intrusive. Katz V US: US v Jacobsen: Kyllo v US and Terry V Ohio. in each case the courts found in favor of the individual in respects to "expecation of privace" and the "reasonability of the expectation". Thus it still stands that any material no matter how incriminating can not be used against an individual if that material was obtained without a legally issued warrent.

    The second mistake you make with this arguement is taht there is some "right" to privacy. there is not. The 4th amendment is not about privacy it is about possession. you are in possession of material which may incriminate you and the government wants it they must obtain a warrent. Privacy and the "expectaion there of" is a socital ideal but it does not exist absolutly. the determination of a voilation of the "expectaion" of privacy is thus: "The classic two-prong test in judging whether the Fourth Amendment protects an individual's right to privacy asks: (1) whether the individual expects privacy, and then (2) whether society finds this expectation reasonable. The first prong, the subjective expectation of privacy, is difficult to contest because a defendant will almost invariably affirm that expectation. Therefore, the second prong is what courts generally focus upon. Yet it is this second prong that most often flies in the face of what the general public accepts--that courts' interpretations of the Constitution do not reflect the subjective expectations of society" (Boston Instatue....)

    Now for the next several comments all pertaining to rights under juris prudence.... the first note to make is that under the patriot act one must be proclaimed a "unlawful combatant". And yes sadly this is not very hard to achieve, but not because of provisons of teh act itself simply by teh selective evidence produced when seeking arrest warrents and this happends rutinely without need of the act.

    Admittedly there have been more than ... well too many, cases of US citizens being declaired combatants and being arrested. However you must fairly acknowledge that each person was given fair and speedy "redress" and in each case has not only won their freedom back but in many cases won a settlement against the government.

    It is for this reason, that the potentenial exists for abuse without redress exists that I oppose the patriot act. I do not oppose it for what it HAS done, for it has actually done nothing, but for what it MIGHT do.

    Government is not yet the master but I easy admit we are nearing a tipping point where freedom may be held only with the spilling of blood.
    (more)
  • cellophane cynsity 2012/06/03 02:55:22
    cellophane
    +1
    You present lots of "stuff" to go through here, and since in your last paragraph we are at least somewhat in agreement, I'm not going to dig deep in the research (you give a good presentation, by the way).

    But I did want to make one comment on your first paragraph, re. religion.

    >>>with or without the patriot act government can and always has "monitored" religion... how do you think the Branch Davidian incedent came about a decade before 9-11 and the Patriot act.... <<<

    There is nothing wrong with the government monitoring religion. But there is something wrong with the government monitoring religion (which equates to the people involved in the religion) simply because of the religion itself, without any credible reason to suspect that any wrong is being or has been done.

    Until next time....
  • cynsity cellophane 2012/06/03 20:02:16
    cynsity
    +1
    I present all this same "stuff" to most of my studenst so you can certainly do what i encourage them to do (and correct me if you disagree) look it up yourself.... but if you don't I WON'T just assume you think I am correct that is arrogant I don't expect anyone to take their time to fact check me... I spend enough time fact checking everyone else to know its a suck-y pursuit. :-/

    As for government monitoring religion we are NOT in disagreement at all... It is WRONG for government to monitor religions just because its religion... sadly though its not a violation of the rights of the people or the Constitution.

    Thank you for the engaging discussion... I will take much of what you said and incorprate it back into a lesson plan I am sure.
  • JohnnyR... cellophane 2012/06/08 20:16:15
    JohnnyRudick
    It must also be pointed out that the government would not have gotten involved with the Branch Davidians if it were not for the series ran by the Waco Tribune-Herald which interviewed the more spiteful of ex members.
    I am not defending the group, I am just pointing out that it was not Government monitoring of religion that got Koresh.
  • cynsity JohnnyR... 2012/06/09 04:09:37
    cynsity
    +1
    the government WAS actually monitoring them I was stationed at Ft Hood from 90-92 and we were "hosting" some of teh FBI communications. the news paper through FIA put them on their radar because of teh coming and going of the FBI and DEA. They were also monitoring several alledge pligiamist settlements but I was PCS'd before anything came of that.
  • JohnnyR... cynsity 2012/06/08 19:59:16
    JohnnyRudick
    Thanks again.
  • JohnnyR... cellophane 2012/06/08 19:56:45
    JohnnyRudick
    Thanks a lot.
  • JohnnyR... cellophane 2012/06/08 19:45:06
    JohnnyRudick
    Thanks.
  • JohnnyR... cynsity 2012/06/08 19:43:06
    JohnnyRudick
    Thanks.
  • JohnnyR... cynsity 2012/06/08 19:41:08
    JohnnyRudick
    Thanks.
  • JohnnyR... cynsity 2012/06/08 19:37:56
    JohnnyRudick
    Thanks.
  • cynsity JohnnyR... 2012/06/08 19:39:45
    cynsity
    +1
    for? but your welcome anyway
  • JohnnyR... cynsity 2012/06/09 22:22:36
    JohnnyRudick
    For your quality comment.
  • cynsity JohnnyR... 2012/06/10 01:21:52
    cynsity
    +1
    ah well you have to give all the credit to cellphane for the solid debate.
  • JohnnyR... cynsity 2012/06/10 03:08:58
    JohnnyRudick
    Thanks cellphane.;-)
  • JohnnyR... cellophane 2012/06/08 19:35:10
    JohnnyRudick
    Good question.
    Thanks.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/02 22:05:06

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals