Liberty or security

**Cicero** · 1st February 2012 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Devil505

I'm gonna stop you right there;
The government can & has provided both.
100% of either is an unattainable goal.

No, the government has not provided safety. The demonstrable risk of a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack has not changed significantly since 2001. The risk of other terrorist actions has not demonstrably decreased during this same period. The probability of a terrorist attack, at Great America is pretty much the same today as it was eleven years ago.
Your chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack haven't changed significantly during this period, however, there has been a significant increase in domestic surveillance. I am not arguing for some bizarre conspiracy theory here, I am saying that the things you have traded haven't given you the end result you wanted.

I am not advocating for 100% of anything, I am asking you a simple question. Where is the bright line that the government should not cross?

**Cicero** · 1st February 2012 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by anonnymous

I don't know if this still holds true for some but for me anything the government does to infringe upon my god given liberties is crossing the line.

Anything? Is it an infringement upon your liberty to have a police department which enforces some degree of social order? Which minimized your need to stand constant guard over your property? If so, is this an acceptable trade off for living in an orderly society? If not, why not?

**Devil505** · 1st February 2012 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

No, the government has not provided safety. The demonstrable risk of a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack has not changed significantly since 2001. The risk of other terrorist actions has not demonstrably decreased during this same period. The probability of a terrorist attack, at Great America is pretty much the same today as it was eleven years ago.
Your chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack haven't changed significantly during this period, however, there has been a significant increase in domestic surveillance. I am not arguing for some bizarre conspiracy theory here, I am saying that the things you have traded haven't given you the end result you wanted.

I am not advocating for 100% of anything, I am asking you a simple question. Where is the bright line that the government should not cross?

I already answered you the best I could.
No blanket law/policy will ever be able to ensure both safety & liberty & there will always be a tension between the two that can only be addressed one law at a time..

**Cicero** · 1st February 2012 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Devil505

I already answered you the best I could.
No blanket law/policy will ever be able to ensure both safety & liberty & there will always be a tension between the two that can only be addressed one law at a time..

And your response is an evasion.

Is indefinite detention without trial acceptable? Does it make you more secure, yes or no?

**Devil505** · 1st February 2012 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

And your response is an evasion.

I simply disagree.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Is indefinite detention without trial acceptable? Does it make you more secure, yes or no?

No to both.

**Cicero** · 1st February 2012 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Devil505

I simply disagree.

No to both.

Ah, so there is a bright line that the government should not cross.

And what of warrantless wiretaps? Do they make you more secure?

**Devil505** · 1st February 2012 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Ah, so there is a bright line that the government should not cross.

I already said when it come to specific laws/policies there is. Your poll asked about the abstract.

Originally Posted by Cicero

And what of warrantless wiretaps? Do they make you more secure?

No

**Davocrat** · 1st February 2012 07:34 PM

"Safety" is often co-opted for financial gain. For example Pfizer probably doesn't want me grow my own medicinal herbs. And their rationale is how dangerous it is to try that without double-blind testing.

Wouldn't it suck for them if crabgrass were found to kill cancer cells?

**new_publius** · 1st February 2012 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Is indefinite detention without trial acceptable?

'Indefinite Detention' - sounds bad right? How about we capture POWs and hold them for the duration of the conflict? Sounds a little better doesn't it?

During WWII did we just let the German soldiers go after we captured them and we were holding them, indefinitely I might add, in POW camps in TX? Without trial or charge?

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

"The AUMF authorizes the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 115 Stat. 224. There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use." {Hamdi v. Rumsfeld}

Originally Posted by Cicero

Does it make you more secure, yes or no?

Of course it does....

"The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again."

**anonnymous** · 1st February 2012 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Anything? Is it an infringement upon your liberty to have a police department which enforces some degree of social order? Which minimized your need to stand constant guard over your property? If so, is this an acceptable trade off for living in an orderly society? If not, why not?

Yes, of course this is acceptable. Anything that does not infringe upon my liberty is acceptable. The government providing for national defense is not permission to circumvent my rights as a sovereign being. I have a right to privacy, to be secure in my possessions,the right to defend myself and family, and freedom to enjoy it all without undue searches or seizures.