Political Crossfire Forums

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject:

Kumar wrote: micfranklin wrote: Freedom should always come first.
It's only sensible to at least consider temporarily giving up some freedoms if circumstances are such that there is a risk of all freedoms becoming permanently eliminated.

That risk of all freedoms being lost may come from the government. How do you know that it won't become tyrannical and take away all the freedoms in the name of security?

Oh and by the way, "They that give up essential liberty for temporary security deserver neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

That said, I wouldn't even consider it. Live free or die.

BobbyO · Joined: 17 Feb 2004 Posts: 1848 Location: Brooklyn, USA

DMS wrote: Thats why the founding father set up a system of checks and balances that Bush did his best to destroy. If some of the so called patriots got their way the United States would turn into a dictatorship with all rights going to wealthiest classes. Balance of power is necessary in any free society.

Okay. So what power does the president possess? And is the exercise of that power subject to the consent of either the judiciary or legislative?

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:29 pm Post subject:

The poll is bad. The question is too vague. There are situations where an essential liberty might not supercede temporary security.

A biological attack happens. The government quarantines my neighborhood. They refuse to allow me to leave or allow anyone to come in.

Is that an essential liberty given up for a temporary security? Is the government wrong to do so?

A natural disaster happens (like New Orleans after Katrina for example). Does the government have a right to impose a curfew? Does the government have a right to declare martial law?

My point is that there are situations where an "essential" liberty may be taken away and justly so. If the denial of said "essential" liberty is superceded by the probable danger, then it should not only be done, it would be irresponsible for the government not to do it.

I can understand the whole point of this thread and that's to bash President Bush's policies in regards to the War on Terror. But since it wasn't targetted directly at that topic, but just throw out there as a fishing expedition of generalities, I said yes because there may be a situation where I have no problem having an "essential" liberty taken away for temporary security if the danger is enough to warrant it.

The correct question should have been:

"Would you give up essential liberties TEMPORARILY for temporary security?"

DMS · Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 829 Location: Up state NY

BobbyO wrote: DMS wrote: Thats why the founding father set up a system of checks and balances that Bush did his best to destroy. If some of the so called patriots got their way the United States would turn into a dictatorship with all rights going to wealthiest classes. Balance of power is necessary in any free society.

Okay. So what power does the president possess? And is the exercise of that power subject to the consent of either the judiciary or legislative?

The power to deem any citizen a terrorist, to be arrested without a trial, tortured and condemned to death. It is not subject to consent by anyone but the president. This power can easilly be abused perhaps not now, perhaps not in the near future, maybe not by our current President or it could be being used now. It does not belong in a free society.

Mr. Sunshine · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1324

DMS wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Theoretically, yes. In reality, I haven't had to(on American soil). As a law abiding American nothing has made me change my lifestyle or quality of life other than having to smell peoples' stinky feet while boarding planes at Airport. I know I am supposed to theoretically be upset by the Patriot Act and other neo-con acts of legal fascism, but in reality the only downside is toe jams. :lol:

You probably never will, even if dissent becomes illegal because you are a Republican drone that supports your party regardless of what they do.

I am not a Republican. Give me a personal example of how your day to day life has been altered by The Patriot Act. Please include video of you being waterboarded for renting the wrong type of movie from Netflix. :roll:

Sunglasses on secondary to blinding reflection off your tin foil hat combined with the light of truth shining upon it.

8:)

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject:

micfranklin wrote: Oh and by the way, "They that give up essential liberty for temporary security deserver neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

Actually Ben Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As much as I admire Ben Franklin for his contribution to our country, he is not the end all or do all of politics.

He also used the word "little". Something that seems to have been dropped from people's quoting of him. What does "little" mean?

Only Ben Franklin can answer that.

BobbyO · Joined: 17 Feb 2004 Posts: 1848 Location: Brooklyn, USA

DMS wrote: BobbyO wrote: DMS wrote: Thats why the founding father set up a system of checks and balances that Bush did his best to destroy. If some of the so called patriots got their way the United States would turn into a dictatorship with all rights going to wealthiest classes. Balance of power is necessary in any free society.

Okay. So what power does the president possess? And is the exercise of that power subject to the consent of either the judiciary or legislative?

The power to deem any citizen a terrorist, to be arrested without a trial, tortured and condemned to death. It is not subject to consent by anyone but the president. This power can easilly be abused perhaps not now, perhaps not in the near future, maybe not by our current President or it could be being used now. It does not belong in a free society.

Such a scenario does not currently exist.

It is true that the president can determine whether someone is a terrorist. But who otherwise should? The Judiciary? what knowledge do they have on such issues (and what about the "Balance of Powers?)?

The law allows for trials, for the accused to see the evidence, to be confronted by witnesses against him, to have witnnesess in his own behalf, and to appeal into the civilian courts. What is the basis for the paranoia about the impending doom to liberty?

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:06 pm Post subject:

Excuse me, but isn't this "fear mongering"? Is the excuse that the government might deny an American liberty unjustly because it is given more power in a time of war?

It sure appears to be fear mongering from the left.

DMS · Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 829 Location: Up state NY

Mr. Sunshine wrote: DMS wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Theoretically, yes. In reality, I haven't had to(on American soil). As a law abiding American nothing has made me change my lifestyle or quality of life other than having to smell peoples' stinky feet while boarding planes at Airport. I know I am supposed to theoretically be upset by the Patriot Act and other neo-con acts of legal fascism, but in reality the only downside is toe jams. :lol:

You probably never will, even if dissent becomes illegal because you are a Republican drone that supports your party regardless of what they do.

I am not a Republican. Give me a personal example of how your day to day life has been altered by The Patriot Act. Please include video of you being waterboarded for renting the wrong type of movie from Netflix. :roll:

Sunglasses on secondary to blinding reflection off your tin foil hat combined with the light of truth shining upon it.

8:)

Please!!!!!!!!!! Too young to vote?

Do not trust either side with this power. Neither side is easilly going to give it up. Both sides have the potential of abusing in the future. Not everyone in the world is only concerned with their own personal welfare. Torture has no place in a free just society. Why change what makes our country different than totalotarian nations?

You trust our government or any government not to abuse power :rotf:

The sunshine must be coming from your own tin foil hat son, stop looking in the mirror.

DMS · Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 829 Location: Up state NY

Ozzone wrote: Excuse me, but isn't this "fear mongering"? Is the excuse that the government might deny an American liberty unjustly because it is given more power in a time of war?

It sure appears to be fear mongering from the left.

Fear mongering? Try common sense. This President is a secretive, corrupt and proven liar. This is not about left or right, it about sustaining a free society. I was in full support of the Republicans when they shot down Clintons version of the Patriot act after the OKC bombings.

Dennis · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject:

I voted "No" on this poll.

Losing my liberties for temporary security is exactly that...temporary. It's not worth it.

To top it off, losing liberties is actually another way of losing security. Liberty is a type of security. Lose that, and you are not really secure.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

I voted yes so long as it was temporary.

You would too if the threat was immenent to your livlihood.

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject:

Ozzone wrote: micfranklin wrote: Oh and by the way, "They that give up essential liberty for temporary security deserver neither liberty nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

Actually Ben Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

As much as I admire Ben Franklin for his contribution to our country, he is not the end all or do all of politics.

He also used the word "little". Something that seems to have been dropped from people's quoting of him. What does "little" mean?

Only Ben Franklin can answer that.

That still doesn't mean I'm willing to give up my freedoms for security. As a matter of fact, freedoms can be security in a sense.

Charlie Man · Joined: 02 Aug 2005 Posts: 4645

Abuse of the PATRIOT act? Wow, that could NEVER happen. Ever. Physically impossible.

Playing rusian roulette is just fun and games until it's rather too late to stop playing. Dangerous precedents are the same way. Every president who doesn't abuse it is just another empty chamber. Although, sometimes you just get unlucky...

Quote: "Within six months of passing the PATRIOT Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. "They say they want the PATRIOT Act to fight terrorism. Then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml

callous · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:34 pm Post subject:

mojo wrote: I voted yes so long as it was temporary.

You would too if the threat was immenent to your livlihood.

if the threat was imminent, I would do something about it myself, not wait for the government to save me.

Conservatives are all about big government, and hiding behind incredibly invasive legislation is a great example of that.

DMS · Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 829 Location: Up state NY

mojo wrote: I voted yes so long as it was temporary.

You would too if the threat was immenent to your livlihood.

Temporary I doubt it.

Street crime is an immenent threat to my livelyhood as is drunk driving but I do not support changing laws to give the police absolute power and being above the law. This government that could not protect nearly three thousand people from poorly trained pilots armed with box cutters. I would not trust them with the livelyhood of my cat.

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject:

I think its pretty obvious who'd keep freedom and who'd give it up.....

Ozzone · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject:

callous wrote: mojo wrote: I voted yes so long as it was temporary.

You would too if the threat was immenent to your livlihood.

if the threat was imminent, I would do something about it myself, not wait for the government to save me.

How? How would you stop imminent terrorist threats? How would you even know the threat was imminent?

Ok, I'll play along. Here's some scenarios.

1) A handful of Al Qaeda members are going to smuggle a dirty bomb into Miami. How will you know? What will you do?

2) 3 Al Qaeda terrorists plan on hijacking a plane from Spain and crashing it into the Empire State Building. How will you know? What will you do?

Your statement is laughable. It is so easy to spout of comments like that without a single shred of reality to back them up.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

pete wrote: Absolutely not. Giving up your Liberty is asking for Tyranny!

such bias! :lol:

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

nanite1018 wrote: I would absolutely not give up any of the liberties guaranteed me by the Constitution for security in any form. Those liberties are only the most basic liberties necessary for any sort of democratic republic to function properly. I would give up the right to bear arms, probably, because i hate guns; but other than that, none of them should be infringed upon in any way. Liberty is too precious to be traded away for mere security. I'd rather fight to the death for my liberties than surrender to tyranny, although i don't think the Patriot Act or anything like that is tyrannical, i don't like it. I certainly would fight someone over it, but i would certainly argue till I'm blue in the face.

In short, absolutely not.

You might not have to fight to your death if you kept your right to bear arms! sorry if this is the tenth time someone said this, actually I hope it is.