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

by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru Posted 2012/05/30 04:18:23

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	26 votes	31%
	No	59 votes	69%

More polls by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru

Playerazzi to Juan Iota 2012/06/10 08:40:24

Oh, I read it all right, especially this part: ":) I dont care if we all get killed off, "

reply
Zed to Playerazzi 2012/06/14 15:57:52

+1
no we dont. we'd rather die on our feet than live on our knees like the founding fathers like true americans you let the government twist you to advocate against your own self interest

reply
Playerazzi to Zed 2012/06/17 09:31:01

OK, then, die on your feet.

reply
Zed to Playerazzi 2012/07/16 01:44:41

thats what makes me an american because thats what this country was founded on.

reply
Playerazzi to Zed 2012/07/16 08:50:55

OK, I'll come to your funeral, and we'll make a 21-gun salute.

Then I'll go home and have a beer.

reply
Zed to Playerazzi 2012/07/16 23:24:28

+1
guns and beers aren't allowed remember those civil liberties you gave up also you cant leave your house out of curfew or think for yourself

reply
Playerazzi to Zed 2012/07/18 10:10:27

But you fought for the liberties. And died for them.

So, either I come to your funeral with a 21-gun salute, then go home and have my beer, OR

I'll come to your wedding with no guns, and no booze. I'll bring a set of towels as a gift (don't tell your bride, it's a surprise).

Which would you prefer?

reply
Zed to Playerazzi 2012/09/28 06:16:37

your not getting the picture if they can take freedoms away from one of us they can do it to all of us and to me those are the most important thing. Forget military and everything else if there is no good or freedom to protect then what is the point of any of it in the first place.

reply
Playerazzi to Zed 2012/09/28 10:01:46

The preference for freedoms over security were in part, responsible for 9-11. There were some reports of officials at the Boston airport who looked at one of the 9-11 terrorists and said "now, if that isn't a terrorist, then I don't know what". And the person was not even stopped to be spoken to at all. After all, it would have been a violation of his freedom of movement.

There is a balance between complete freedoms - anarchy - and a police state. IMO the U.S. is leaning too much in the former direction.

reply
Zed to Playerazzi 2012/09/30 06:36:25

your just ignorant if you believe you can tell someones intentions by what they look like. So its justifiable for me to be stopped everytime I leave walmart because Im latino. Their logic is the same as yours "Now, if that isn't a theif then I dont know what is."

reply
Playerazzi to Zed 2012/09/30 13:35:23

Well, no, not completely. But if, say, a person who wants to board a plane has paid cash, is on a one-way flight, comes from a very poor country, AND just happens to be Muslim and looks Arab, then it might be prudent to take him aside and ask him a few questions. It could be that he is just a dude flying, and if so, that will come out very quickly.

The logic of the ticket agent was indeed "now if that isn't a terrorist, I don't know what is ... " and it turned out he WAS a terrorist.

Safety is more important than political correctness and "liberties". The right to be safe and live (and not die) is more important than any one individual's right to not be questioned or detained.

reply
BoomLover to Zed 2012/07/08 21:09:53

Zed, got your back, man. You know your talking to someone who lives in Israel, where they don't live by the same codes and sense of moral outrage that many of us do here. It might not mean much, but they are hypocrits, especially in this matter...they traded HOW MANY Guilty men over for one soldier...letting terrorists and murderers go free, and yet, he doesn't like my statement of "It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man."

reply