"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come."
"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
This speech was given on the floor of the assembly when the members of the various colonies were trying to decide if they should really go to war against England, which was at the time the most powerful military force in the world. I draw a parallel to this speech for our present times because it addresses a very important issue.
In a democratic society, there will always be opportunities for people to do us harm. You cannot have total freedom and total security. The more freedom you have, the easier it is to plot and carry out secret schemes. However, the more "security" you have, the more liberty you must give up, the less privacy you will have, and the less personal decisions you will be able to make about what to do in your own life, with your own body, and in your own beliefs.
So a balance must be struck and vigorously maintained by the people between security and liberty. As a country, we must say "give me liberty or give me death!", because we are not willing to accept the chains of slavery, which in our modern society are made of fear. Fighting the war on terror means we are willing to battle the forces who wish to terrorize and take away our personal freedoms that make life worth living. Fighting the war on terror does mean send troops to Arab countries to murder civilians. It means that citizens of democratic countries must battle against any group, organization, or individuals that try to take away our constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Weigh in on the debate and tell us where you think the balance should be? What liberties, freedoms, and privacy are you not willing to give up for the illusion of security? What rights, privacy, and liberties do you feel are a fair and effective trade for some security? What must we do as a society to ensure that the War on Terror does not take these precious rights away?
Posts
9 comments:
My view is a little more extreme than most people would like for the simple fact that I don’t think any freedoms should be given up for securities because there is always corruption in government and those securities will always be misused. (1) I will talk about how drastic loss can make people think its okay for some of out freedoms to be swept aside for the moment but that I would contest that it is a greater loss than anything. When America was attacked the government took complete advantage of the situation and made a provision to strip some of our freedoms for uses that were about 10% of what they actually said it would be used it for and then wrap it all up in a very American name in hopes that most people wouldn’t contest it.(1)
The main reason that I think that no freedoms shall be given up is the fact that if you let the government know they can do that they begin to abuse those powers openly. We fought a war in America where far more lives were lost than in “9/11” and nothing has come of these extra securities.(2) If someone is determined enough and smart enough there is always a way around security no matter what you do. The fear created by the media and the government post “9/11” was far more effective than the crash alone.
Don’t get me wrong we shall never forget the day we were attacked by terrorists and all of the people that lost their lives on that fate full day. It is still just as important to remember all that gave their live in hope of guaranteeing freedoms and having our government defend those rights not strip them from the people first chance they can.
1. Larry Abrams, NPR (National Public Radio), 11-07-08, [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4756403]
2. John W. Chambers, II, ed. in chief, The Oxford Companion to American Military History. (Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-507198-0), 849. [< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war>]
The post September 11 turmoil over the battle between the choice of citizens personal liberties and their inherent right to security, can most notably be associated with Americans need to abate the fear of eminent terrorist attack. In order to fully analyze this sort of issue, we must fully assess the source, cause, advantages, results and consequences of rules that are imposed on American citizens. First we must ask ourselves, what is liberty and from what or where is liberty derived? For the founders of the American constitution who studied and venerated many of the prominent ideals from the Enlightenment Era regarded liberty as the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force, given by Nature and Nature's God, which, in the ideal state, would be as expansive as possible. So now, what is terror? Real terror; not President George W. Bush’s idea of the “evil ones.” Well its simple, terror is overwhelmingly intense fear. So the real description of a terrorist is any person or group who utilizes any form, or threatens our nation using overwhelming, intense fear. Now that it is clear who the adversary is, and what is at stake, we can evaluate how to secure ourselves against these threats while preserving our liberties.
As far as the extensiveness of liberty goes, they should be limitless because these freedoms are those which are not granted by man. Thomas Jefferson stated “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.” Franklin’s remark denotes the notion that there is a much more substantial risk factor associated with giving away freedom, than there is in having unsuppressed liberties. Our United States Constitution is a masterful document which mandates and outlines the full scope of American civil liberties. Those liberties such as freedom of speech, or of the press, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to a speedy and public trial, etc, were intended to be inexhaustible. Instead, through the forethought of peril and destruction, the current administration has strong-armed and compelled American citizens to put a value on our freedoms. This is entirely inadmissible, even by our own government. The enlisting of these vices can and should be considered a form a civil terrorism. This is a flawed and unacceptable doctrine which the memory of similar historical atrocities should have been thwarted.
Have we not learned from the failed practices which have alienated people’s patriotism in the most sadistic ways? Just 38 years ago the Federal Bureau of Investigations (F.B.I) began an unethical, sometimes illegal, covert campaign “disrupting” dissident political organizations within the United States infamously named COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program). The problem is that the FBI used unethical, illegal, civil liberties violating tactics to do the job against many political organizations that were not only non-violent, but partaking in no illegal activity at all. Organizations like Martin LutherKing Jr. civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Vietnam War protestors, to name a few. They enlisted agents to infiltrate organizations, partook in psychological warfare by undermining otherwise productive movements, abused the legal system using it to harass or embarrass dissidents and exerted violent measures using threats, break-ins, vandalism, instigation and beatings. F.B.I Director J. Edgar Hoover advocated the direct violation to the constitutional amendment stating “Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the BPP (Black Panther Party) and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge.”
The U.S. Patriot Act has done some unspeakable violation to civil liberties, though it over-watchful mandates. These practices only draw us closer to the failed Federal policing strategies. Strategies like the increased ability allotted to the F.B.I in the arenas of wiretapping and internet security. What is called a “Sneek and Peek” provision allow for federal agents to enter any alleged persons house while they’re away, search it and not be required to notify the owner until weeks later. The F.B.I. has also resulted back to inquiring into relative library records, which was a practice that was scrapped with the COINTELPRO. If these practices, sound as if they some way make us more unsafe, it is because they essentially do. Research Director/Professor of Law at New York University Stephen Holmes points out that “in many situations when liberty seems lost at the expense of security, security is actually lost as well. This suggests these practices only claim to be secure, but in reality undermine security.” (Holmes, 1)
Temperament is a virtue necessary to keep our liberties intact, while doing all necessary, conceivable actions to secure ourselves. Actually what is to be secure is our liberty!
By: Jarrell A Easley
Works Cited
Holmes, Steven “Liberty vs. Security” Philosophy Talk
25 Sept. 2006. 09 Nov.2008
http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/LibertySecurity.html
Holmes, Kim and Meese, Edwin III “Balancing Security and Liberty”
The Heritage Foundation 11 Oct.. 2001. 09 Nov.2008
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed101101.cfm
NPR Org “Liberty vs. Security: An NPR Special Report Ashcroft Faces Scrutiny for Steps Taken Since Sept. 11” NPR Organization 6 Dec. 2001. 09 Nov.2008
http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/liberties/index.html
Grimm, Dieter“How to Balance Freedom and Security”
Speigel Online Intnl. 6 Apr. 2007. 09 Nov.2008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,479668,00.html
Center For Technology and Democracy “Security and Freedom”
CTD Org. 9 Nov 2008 9 Nov 2008
http://www.cdt.org/legislation/110th/2007congress-agenda-security-and-freedom.php
“Thomas Jefferson” Wikipedia.Org 2008 Electronic Encyclopedia 28 Oct 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
“Bill of Rights” Wikipedia.Org 2008 Electronic Encyclopedia 28 Oct 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
“COINTELPRO” Wikipedia.Org 2008 Electronic Encyclopedia 28 Oct 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
COINTEL.ORG “The Counter Intelligence Program and the internet”
COINTEL Organization . 9 Apr. 2001. 09 Nov.2008
http://www.oilempire.us/cointelpro.html
When it comes to the question, what freedoms would you give up to have a scene of security, I would have to agree with Benjamin Franklin when he said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I am not a big proponent of giving up any freedom to feel safe. I am also not say that by have all our freedoms we are safe because that is not true there will always be bad apples out their try to make everyone miserable even if we were to give away some freedom. No matter which side a person is on we will never be truly safe, and to those who say yes to the question, would you give up a little freedom for additional security, I would call you idiots. There is no fair trade off when you give up any of your rights, anything that is offered will not be of equal value for the right you are giving up. I mean come on how many of you really feel safe with the “patriot act” in place? Can anyone really say that when any one of our rights is taken away we will get them back, luckily in the past it has happened I am talking about when FDR sent many Japanese-Americans to internment camps, this s a big violation of American rights. But there freedoms where restored. Now if lets say that the government little by little takes rights away from there citizens and you eventually cache on and you say “What the hell” and they tell you “don't worry we will restore every thing to the way it was after we win the war on terror”. OK. Now be realistic do you ever thing they will win this war on terror. I mean come on with the way things are going this will never happen and they will just keep making up new excuses every time to take just one more right away from you so you could as they like to put it feel safe. So like I side giving up any freedom to have a false scene of security is wrong and no one should really thing other wise but I cant change any ones mind but sooner or later they will agree with me. I just hope that a lot more people realize this be for it gets worse.
Lovato, Frank. "Freedom or Security?". democratic underground. September 11, 2003 http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/09/11_freedom.html
DiPasquale, Tony. "Trading freedom for security". Renew America. January 1, 2004 http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dipasquale/040101
"Benjamin Franklin". Wikiquote. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
By: Jireh Garcia
What started the war on terror is the “9/11” incident. It created a tremendous impact on Americans on that day and even today. It created fear among the people and I think the more fear we have, it is easier for the government to mobilize the public when it comes to policies that they want to pursue. (1) Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants. When the “9/11” incident happened, the government took advantage of us. Meaning that they took away some of our freedoms and focused more on security. Airports are tighter and there are a lot of security checks everywhere. This affects a lot of people especially if you have a family on other countries who wants to move to United States, how stricter can they get.
My point of view is that more security will cause more violence. The government focuses more on building the military. The other countries will get alerted and start to build their own military. This may cause another war. We have already been in a lot of wars in the past and it has created an impact Americans. They think that boosting up our security will create more peace but I think that’s wrong. Other countries are sometimes jealous of what United States has and due to that, it might cause another war. (2)The less freedom a people has, the greater the likelihood of government instability, internal and foreign war, and democide. Security and liberty should be balanced because it both benefits one another. That’s why the people need to be strong and let not fear take over.
(1) Zbigniew Brzezinski, Terrorized by 'War onTerror', March 25, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR200703230161.html]
(2)R.J. Rummel, Testing Whether Freedom Predicts Human Security and Violence, 11/23/02, [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.APPENDIX.HTM#DF]
Liberty is our freedom. We exercise it, without even noticing sometimes. We have the right to say whatever we want. Choose any religion we want. Why would you sacrifice that? It’s what makes America special from those other countries. You can try to balance it out with security as much as you want, but in the end you will never be fully secure.
The War on Terror is an on going battle to preserve our freedoms. But the battle has gone on long enough. How barbaric do we have to be? Killing unnecessary civilians, to find one leader? We’ve already proved our point after 9/11. We captured Hussein. Just let this stupid fight end. As a society, we have to stop this pointless battle at Iraq. Petitions, protests, whatever it takes. That is the beauty of living in America! Exercise our freedoms.
Sources:
"War on Terrorism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 9 Nov 2008, 18:23 UTC. 10 Nov 2008 < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Terrorism&oldid=250693017 >.
Fahrenheit 9/11. Dir. Michael Moore. Lions Gate Films, 2006.
“United States Constitution.” 9 Nov 2008. < http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html >
Manuel
Give me liberty or give me security, gives us more security because if we had more security the 911 incident could have been avoided. We need more security protecting our country and we need to stop worrying on airport security. We need more border patrol, u.s. customs, and more port police to protect and have a safer country to live in. If we had more liberty and less security there would be more terrorist coming in into our country bringing in drugs, weapons and terror that going to harm our country and people.
www.uscbp.com
I for one believe that none of our liberties should be given up for security. This is the land of the free right? Why should we have to give up any rights for our country to provide the maximum level of security? (1) Many people don’t know about the Patriot Act signed just 45 days after September 11th, by our president. This act literally stripped us from just about all of our privacy. It gave the government the right to search your medical record, tax records, anything and everything you have purchased, and even to break into your house and detain you for months without giving you a reason why. I for one, when I first read of this, thought it was ludicrous. I would never, and I mean never be willing to give up my rights, no matter what type of security is offered to me by such a trade. (2) Not only do I believe it to be unconstitutional but history has proven it to be a waste of extra manpower. For example Martin Luther King was a target of spying by the FBI, the investigation produced mountains of files but no evidence of dangerous activity. Even with the power to spy on whomever the government chooses to does not mean they will catch any terrorist, for they keep a really low profile with no public display of dangerous activity. With the power to storm into your house but no way determine who to go after, how is that going to protect me any better than they not having the power NOT to break my front door down without any explination? Thus the reason why I say we should not have to give up any rights to be provided with the maximum level of security.
By Danny R.
(1)ACLU, USA PATRIOT Act, November 13, 2003 [http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html]
(2)Jeff Milchen, Security vs. Freedom: the False Choice , June 2003 [http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/civil_rights/security_freedom_false_choice.html]
Security and liberty cannot be viewed as before when the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was formed. Technology changed our level of security and freedom drastically. Our movements are tracked everyday, from phone calls to supermarket discount cards. Each domestic or international attack we suffer alerts us for the new danger and the government is forced to create new measure of defense.
We always want everything better and more efficient without inconveniences. But how is that possible? We don’t want another 9/11 but we also don’t want anyone monitoring cell phones and e-mail. The balance between security and liberty and what worth the most is a personal decision greatly influenced by the situation. For most of us, bulletproof vests are not worth the cost and inconvenience. For some of us, home burglar alarm systems are. And most of us lock our doors at night.
Technology is making privacy invasion so easy that we even help them by posting our information online on sites like MySpace and YouTube and storing personal data on e-mails. The scary part of that is not that they can invade our privacy, but how they can use that information against you. A breach of privacy has a direct impact on liberty. As I saw a case on the news that a private investigator was obtaining information through a person cell phone internet account.
“The government complains that new technology makes its job more difficult, but the fact is that digital technology has vastly augmented the government's powers.” (Center for Democracy and Technology report)
According to AJPS “American Journal of Political Science” the greater people sense of threat, the lower their support for civil liberties. This effect interacts, however, with trust in government. The lower people's trust in government, the less willing they are to trade off civil liberties for security, regardless of their level of threat.
Big Brother is watching you.
by John K. Bacchus
References:
Schneier , Bruce. "Slouching toward Big Brother." January 30, 2004. CNET News < http://news.cnet.com/2010-1028-5150325.html >.
Stuart Taylor, Jr. " Rights, Liberties, and Security: Recalibrating the Balance after September 11 Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution, November 10, 2008 http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/winter_terrorism_taylor.aspx
Darren W. Davis Brian D. Silver. “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America” Volume 48 Issue 1, Pages 28 - 46
Published Online: 12 Dec 2003, Michigan State University < http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118766763/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0>
Agence France Presse, February 23, 2006, 'Big Brother' Watching E-mail, Computer Data: US Report < http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0223-03.htm>
Charlie Marquez
11-21-08
Group Dynamics
Ms. Chauser
“Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death”
Freedom is the most important thing a man or woman could possibly have. Balance should be held accordingly to the rights and privacy of the people. I am not willing to give up my freedom or rights at no means, but I am willing to fight and defend this country without a doubt. The war that started in 2001 and it still continues to go on in the Arabs nation has been a great threat in the Americas. I know that I am a free man with equal rights and equal privacy. Freedom was not given to this country, they fought for it and won it. We are in the presence of terrorism and war against groups from the middle east whom have nothing to lose. As we now know that we don’t exactly have the same privacy we once had a couple of years ago. Phone lines have been tapped, the internet has been strongly watched for, and for the safety of my family as well as my own it doesn’t bother me at all. If it is for protection and to ensure us all safety then its well worth it. To ensure that our society is safe from terror, we first need a great leader with a mind in his head and an idea of what the people want our of it, without being like president George W. Bush as well as his father and both men taking this country to war without hesitation and without thinking of the consequences but with greed in their mind. Our beliefs and our ideas are just a wander in the skies. The people running the country are the ones running the show and if we don’t speak out like Patrick Henry once said then basically we are nobody, and we are always going to be followers and we are letting the leaders put us in fear and danger and taking our dreams of freedom, privacy, and liberty.
Resources:
History.org
Noodlehead.org
Post a Comment