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

I'd rather a bunch of Americans get to keep living than prevent a few terrorists from being tortured. You obviously have to draw a line and not go overboard with it, but when it comes to protecting lives of your own, sometimes you have to go to extreme measure. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I think you will find he later reversed that sentiment.

Go back to bed, America. You are free. To do. As we tell you... You are free. To do. As we tell you...

In extreme circumstances, yes. The needs of the whole should come before those of an individual. A public apology must be made with explicit explanation for the violation. But under normal circumstances, especially without proof of danger to the whole, the liberties of the individual should take precedent. Allowing fear to control our nation's policy of civil liberties leaves us without any liberties at all.

Oh boy, I'm going to upset someone now.... I have no problem with cameras and other devices in public places. They have their uses, and if it cuts down on crime...robbery, rape, murder, theft...GOOD!

The NSA can read my email all they want....but they might want to get a hit of speed to keep them awake....its pretty boring and mundane.

I also have no problem with significant security checks before using public or private mass transit.... You might think that YOUR rights are infringed upon....but I can't help but wonder how you would feel about the laxity of security after the plane you are on starts rocketing toward the ground at over 700 miles an hour...??

In short....I have absolutely no problems upsetting someone's applecart to protect the many or society as a whole.

If you don't like the world as it is changing...become an agorophobic.

In other times i'd say no, but in the present situation of legal idiocy I think we have to have some protection that is above the law.

What you do instead is organize a bottom-up, hard-target defense. Let's do the "gun behind every blade of grass" thing. Let the airlines handle their own security--and give them complete freedom to do what they must. Including having on-board *armed* masters-at-arms, and training pilots in the kind of maneuvers that two El Al pilots used to such excellent effect in the Dawson's Field Incident. (The perps that targeted the El Al flight that day were the only ones that failed.)

Amen, Temlakos!

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.

True, Steve. Well said.

People too often mention national security as an excuse to violate any civil or human right.

For sure!

Of course. This is a no-brainer.

The *concept* is a no-brainer. After all, had we violated a few civil liberties like questioning people for no obvious cause, 9/11 may not have happened. We allow criminals out of prisons too often, and we do not have enough accountability for people's actions.

The devil is in the details, though. We must do it wisely, otherwise it can both backfire and not even be effective. I can also be counter-effective.

And if anyone is worrying about this, we do it already. For example, when we arrest someone, we limit his movement, thus violating his civil liberties. OK, it's justified and ensconed in law, but we can make new laws that fit new situations.

There needs to be a balance between individual civil liberties and the right of the group to live in peace (ie, the rule of law), and IMO, the balance today is too much in the direction of individual civil liberties.

'Justification' is used to make it 'Ok' to do the wrong thing. Just like 'Business' is a word used to make it 'Ok' to be immoral.

Sometimes situations of public, personal and national safety require civil liberties to be breached. But continued institutional violation of civil liberties is not acceptable.

A nation that sacrifices liberty in the name of security deserves none.

No. I don't think it's a good idea. All civil liberties should be protected no matter what. :)

Tricky question; the problem lies with liberal/progressives, devoid of common sense, ‘let the city burn, the innocents die, ask questions later’.

Of course it's not . If an exception can be found for one, it can be found for all. Which part of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or the Amendments are you willing to forgo in the name of "national security"?

absolutely, positively not.

Life on earth has no guarantees other than our civil liberties. If you ar5e willing to trade them for some kind of false sense of security, then you will eventually get what you deserve.

In a case to avoid mass murder I would say yes.

It all depends.

Would I torture an individual to prevent a ticking time-bomb that would kill thousands?
Yes.

Would I violate civil liberties in anything other than the very rare exception?
No.

Well, this being only a yes/no question I have to go with no. Some would say it is justified in the name of national security. Lincoln certainly did it.

In order to protect the majority sometimes, within reason the rights of individuals must be taken away. I would rather be questioned without a warrant and held for a week longer than I should have been than risk the possibility of my city blowing up and those I care about dying. Its a sad choice but this is the world we are living in.

What about the many thousands who have spent years in prisons wrongly or falsely accused, had their rights taken completely away from them, would that count? Does the saying "It is better for a thousand guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man" ring a bell?

Not for me, it doesn't ring a bell. But it doesn't have to. I disagree with it. I would rather have the thousand guilty men in jail with the one convicted innocent man. It's sad for him, but it is better for the rest of us.

Even if you were the one wrongly convicted?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Having said that, there is always room for improvement, and only those who are truly guilty should be punished. But we should not swing too much in the other way and thereby create a more lawless society.

Quoting Spock, and using that logic, it's alright to give up your life, liberty, etc, if your needs don't match the wants or needs of the masses or the majority. Hummm...sort of like lemmings, running off a cliff, following each other to certain destruction. And if you think about it, it is also the manifesto apparent of Socialism and or Communism. That is a philosophy I could never subscribe to, thank you. In my world, everyone counts, and it is better to set 100 guilty men free than to convict even one innocent man. That is the inherent fairness that should be built into the Law.

It is better to send 100 guilty men free than convict one innocent man?

Well, we part ways here.

What if those 100 guilty men are murderers and only one in five end up killing again? 20 people have now died. They have died as human sacrifices on the alter of so-called "fairness".

The price, in your scenario, is for one innocent man to end up behind bars. Unpleasant as it is, I would rather have that than 20 dead people.

I for one, am NOT in to human sacrifice.

And if you were that innocent man? Or your son, your father? Your right, pretty "unpleasant". I can tell you have never done even one day in prison, so here is my take on it. Those "guilty men" can be re-tried, re-caught, re-sentenced, it is kind of like what Israel did, exchanging HOW MANY Guilty men, (guilty of terrorism, murder, etc.), in exchange for one soldier? When the "collective" allows the rights of even one person to be trampled, then they will allow the rights of all to be trampled.

I still disagree with you.

The rights of the whole city to live in peace and safety is more important than the rights of one individual who *might* have been wrongly convicted. Saving 20 or more lives is more important - more moral - than *maybe* incarcerating one innocent man.

But of course we should try to get that one innocent man out of jail. But I'm looking at what is good for society at large.

Believe me, I am NOT going to go to bat for what this country did in exchanging hundreds of terrorists for one person, or worse - for dead bodies. But that is military and diplomatic, and the situation is more complicated, and we are dealing with civilian law here.

definitely not

Thank God there are still some who believe in Liberty.I just don't want to be the last one left alive :) I dont care if we all get killed off, they can have any world that doesnt have personal, civil liberties. I want no part of it:

OK, great. You are indeed on the path of getting what you want.

As were about 3,000 Americans who died in 9/11.

I'd rather have quality of life, rather than quantity.

Wow.

So, let me get this straight: you would rather people die than risk violating a few civil liberties for the sake of public safety?

Remember the saying...."Once the camel's nose get's under the edge of the tent..." "a few civil liberties" can so eaisly turn into more, or most, or even all of your civil liberties.

Okaaaaaaayy y y .

Getting what I want?

I dont think you read my post, you just read what you wanted to read.

"FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS".