What is more important? Terrorists or the Constitution. No matter what you do there will be some terrorist and they will blow stuff up. Millions of people have sacrificed their lives so we enjoy the freedoms we have. 3000 people died in the world trade center. In the grand scheme of things that really isn't very many people. According to the UN 5 times as many kids die every day from hunger. I don't know how accurate that statistic, but it is just a reference point. Why are American's willing to give up these freedoms that millions of people have died for? So that we can prevent one or two terrorist attacks that may or may not happen and even if it does happen will have a statistically insignificant impact?
You can't have freedom without some level of security. However you can't have complete security without giving up your freedoms. There is no one correct answer. It's a balance between them.
I am not going to vote as I don't see an absolute between the two. The choice isn't a police state or constant attacks. I have been troubled by the actions of the current and previous admins in regard to civil liberties and think that many things should be scaled back. I doubt though that there will be any major change anytime soon. Any President or major candidate that does so will be tarred as soft on terror.
Tell the relatives of those who died and will die of terrorist attacks about "statistical insignificance". rockbox's answer is the correct answer.
Except that it is absolute. We got to where we are now because of incrimentalism. People in the past gave up just a little bit, and it didn't make them more safe, so the next generation felt justified in taking a bit more, and we find ourselves in the same predicament.
For me these debates are a useless exercise in mental masturbation that fail to comprehend the complexities of reality. "Must choose! Freedom or safety! One is more important!" The same reason why government can't get anything done. Absolutely don't even think about looking when I want to buy a gun, but make sure you keep crime down! Absolutely don't even think about looking in the general direction of my communications, but you must prevent terrorism! Absolutely don't even think about spending one more cent, have you seen our debt? But you have to fix the economy even as you lay off millions of government workers and destroy incoming tax receipts. Everything is in absolutes. Media goes about in constant hysterics with little substance. WaPo -- they're all spying on us! Oh wait, they denied? I think what we really meant was that they didn't mean to spy on us, but they are. I'm just not interested.
Terrorists are definitely less important than the Constitution. In fact, we probably shouldn't support terrorists at all. I think they cause more harm than good.
Neither. There is a balance. And that balance changes with the need of the people, their government and the "threat" environment. Getting stuck in one or the other extreme is like a rigid pole that when bent enough by external forces will break. I prefer a pole that is flexible but is planted toward the Constitution side (privacy and less government involvement).
Useless poll is useless. As others above have said, its a balance...a trade off if you will. Yes, we lost 3000 on 9/11. On the day of, we didn't know it wasn't 30,000 or more. If a nuke went off in 5 american cities tomorrow, what would the answer be then? My freedom is as important to me as it is to anyone, but is that more important to you than the safety of your loved ones? The answer is, there is no definitive answer.
You have a point there and the more I learn about how much we are under surveillance I think you are right about incremental-ism. As I wrote in another thread I think there is a negative feedback loop driving a greater erosion of privacy.
This is not really true. Ask yourself why most countries don't have as big a problem of foreign terrorists far away constantly scheming to annihilate their country. There is a balance between the two. In your case, however, there is plenty you can do to reduce terrorism and maintain or increase freedoms. America does not have the problem of: well we've maximized freedom and security, so now we have to give one up for the other to find the right balance. You're nowhere near there. In fact if you ranked the countries of the world for who is near there, you guys would be near the bottom. Given that terrorism has not significantly increased for Americans in America (except in the wideness of its definition) post 9/11, you can draw two conclusions: - The problem was never a shortage of invasions. - The security measures taken have not demonstrably improved security. You're still more likely to be killed by your furniture than by a terrorist. The way that US media steers you guys into these discussions is incredible. Social media is ridden with people talking about this as if the only solution to improve your freedoms/security is to exchange one for the other. It's a microcosm of the entire system in place - one that gives you a choice between insignificantly different options. Here is a way you can massively reduce the number of people who want to attack you, reduce the alleged need for these security measures, and save a butt load of money to pull you out of this financial mess: GO HOME.
People are always pissed of about something or the other. Pissed about not getting enough money. Not getting enough respect. Not getting enough Sex. They will find some dumb reason to blow stuff up.
Mathloom is a religious extremist, his real issue is the same that Bin Laden always whined about: American presence in the supposedly "holy land" of Saudi Arabia.
I'm glad we as a people have finally woken up about this. Both parties keep electing people who campaign on promises of security. We naively believe that you can have perfect security and give up nothing in return. Now we realize that in our fear we have given too much. We have no one to blame but ourselves and it hurts us to realize that it is the case.
