• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patriot Act: Liberty for Security

Did you / Do you use that argument?


  • Total voters
    20

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,432
Reaction score
35,276
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?
 
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?

Like everything it is a tradeoff, and absolutes like the argument you are questioning, tend to be overstated.
 
I never understood why people oppose it.

The PATRIOT Act just lets government agencies exchange information among themselves. For example, the FBI can inquire about what books you borrowed from a library.

Wow... so amazing. :fart2
 
I never understood why people oppose it.

The PATRIOT Act just lets government agencies exchange information among themselves. For example, the FBI can inquire about what books you borrowed from a library.

Wow... so amazing. :fart2
Highlighted word makes you wrong.
 
Prove it?

________
 
I haven't ever used that quote as an argument for/against anything because I'm not sure I fully agree with it.
 
we live in a society.

that means we find a balance between Freedoms & Security.

I think the USA, as of right now, is at a good balance.

sure, we could tweek our freedoms a little so we had more. But we also could tweek our security requirements so we'd be a little safer.

Ben Franklin was WRONG, when he suggested that those who sacrifice some liberty for some security, deserve neither.

this is what an intelligent modern society does.
 
I consider it entirely appropriate to sacrifice liberty for security, I simply demand a reasonable cost benefit ratio. Most of the controversial parts of the patriot act did nothing to actually make us safer and came a considerable sacrifice in civil rights. Its especially obnoxious given that considerably more people have been violently murdered in the U.S. as a direct result of marijuana being illegal than terrorism in the last decade, but apparently our safety doesn't matter in that circumstance.
 
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?

I haven't used the argument, but now that you bring it up . . . In my view, The Patriot Act is one fo the most dangerous things that has happened to this country. Americans don't need an act to tell us who we are or what we should be doin; in times of crises: we've always known what to do. I think that that toilet paper was written for political points to show how patriotic they were!! and only cowards signed it in my view. What I really think is that The Patriot Act was written because that is the force that is going to stand against us when the s**t really starts to hit the fan in this country, and it will be used to throw people in jail because of what they think. It needs to be dumped for the benefit of this country.
 
Last edited:
we live in a society.

that means we find a balance between Freedoms & Security.

I think the USA, as of right now, is at a good balance.

sure, we could tweek our freedoms a little so we had more. But we also could tweek our security requirements so we'd be a little safer.

Ben Franklin was WRONG, when he suggested that those who sacrifice some liberty for some security, deserve neither.

this is what an intelligent modern society does.

Name a country that you see as free and I will tell you how they are not.
 
we live in a society.

that means we find a balance between Freedoms & Security.

I think the USA, as of right now, is at a good balance.

sure, we could tweek our freedoms a little so we had more. But we also could tweek our security requirements so we'd be a little safer.

Ben Franklin was WRONG, when he suggested that those who sacrifice some liberty for some security, deserve neither.

this is what an intelligent modern society does.
except that he didn't say some... There has always been a balance. Without it there would be complete anarchy. Anarchy in of itself is quite destructive, but what is even worse is that anarchy is always a short lived process leading to some sort of dictatorship and a fascist state which arises from the ashes.

I am not against the government using certain measures to provide security. The governments 1st priority is to provide security for the country. There will always be some liberty exchanged for that. The question is how much. I do believe that in some ways, we are exchanging too much. Most of our problems though is from inept government not doing it well. The Patriot act is a name, just as there are names for the alert status and threat level. Repeal the "Patriot act" but then replace it with something a little different and a different name. Tweaking the existing form of security seems best to me, rather than a complete scrap of it. Keep the good and change the bad. Call it the patriot act II
 
When liberties are actually lost in the name of security, you really have nor deserve either. Some people's definition of lost liberty is rather skeptical, left and right. But the Patriot act did open the door for loss of liberty, even if none have been lost yet.
 
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?

The Patriot Act....? I don't think it's effected Maggie one iota -- nor anyone I know. Unless the TSA is part of it, then that? It's a pain in the ass. (Excuse my ignorance on whether or not it's a part of it.)
 
I consider it entirely appropriate to sacrifice liberty for security, I simply demand a reasonable cost benefit ratio.

That. And I also believe that some very basic standards should not be sacrificed.

When the executive has the power to kidnap mere suspects from the streets, detain them for years, deny them a fair trial and torture them, without any court required to prove their guilt, without any institution being able to do anything against it ... that is going waaaaay too far and calls for abuse.

Trading some intrusion on privacy for security is one thing, but violating the very basic principle that a suspect must not be punished until proven guilty, and that every suspect has the right on legal assistance and a fair trial, should be off the table.

Some rights are just too fundamental to be traded for security.
 
The Patriot Act....? I don't think it's effected Maggie one iota -- nor anyone I know. Unless the TSA is part of it, then that? It's a pain in the ass. (Excuse my ignorance on whether or not it's a part of it.)

You haven't done anything yet that would challenge it sweetheart. wait utnil you think you need to make a statement; and then watch what happens.
 
That. And I also believe that some very basic standards should not be sacrificed.

When the executive has the power to kidnap mere suspects from the streets, detain them for years, deny them a fair trial and torture them, without any court required to prove their guilt, without any institution being able to do anything against it ... that is going waaaaay too far and calls for abuse.

Trading some intrusion on privacy for security is one thing, but violating the very basic principle that a suspect must not be punished until proven guilty, and that every suspect has the right on legal assistance and a fair trial, should be off the table.

Some rights are just too fundamental to be traded for security.

Agreed. What - basic standards - do you believe should be sacrificed? and how do you qualify such standards? If you mean sacrifice durng time of social crisis, as in habeas corpus being suspended during our civil war, or quartering the Japanese: to protect them - and us, during the war, then yes, I see your point.

Can you elaborate?
 
The Patriot Act....? I don't think it's effected Maggie one iota -- nor anyone I know. Unless the TSA is part of it, then that? It's a pain in the ass. (Excuse my ignorance on whether or not it's a part of it.)

Even if it doesn't effect you personally, it's an infringement on privacy and due process rights to anyone the government decides is involved in terrorist activity. One of the major problems with that, is that "terrorism" was never strictly defined, and is left open to interpretation, which opens a huge can of worms.
 
Agreed. What - basic standards - do you believe should be sacrificed? and how do you qualify such standards? If you mean sacrifice durng time of social crisis, as in habeas corpus being suspended during our civil war, or quartering the Japanese: to protect them - and us, during the war, then yes, I see your point.

Can you elaborate?

I don't think the very basic constitutional standards of freedom and liberty should ever be traded for security. For example, that the government must not detain people without an accusal and a due legal process. Or fair and free elections. Or freedom of the media from censorship.

Of course there can be different interpretations when different rights are in conflict. For example when it comes to libel, slander or instigation of a crime: Where exactly do you draw the line to free speech? But the debate about that line is an entirely different animal than abandoning free speech.

I'm not sure about social crisis. But I think a free society can do well and is strong enough without too fundamental restrictions even in a crisis. At any rate, I don't think the US and the West were really fundamentally threatened after 9/11, unlike the US in the Civil War, for example.

So I guess I'd rather err on the side of freedom than on the side of security.
 
I don't think the very basic constitutional standards of freedom and liberty should ever be traded for security. For example, that the government must not detain people without an accusal and a due legal process. Or fair and free elections. Or freedom of the media from censorship.

Of course there can be different interpretations when different rights are in conflict. For example when it comes to libel, slander or instigation of a crime: Where exactly do you draw the line to free speech? But the debate about that line is an entirely different animal than abandoning free speech.

I'm not sure about social crisis. But I think a free society can do well and is strong enough without too fundamental restrictions even in a crisis. At any rate, I don't think the US and the West were really fundamentally threatened after 9/11, unlike the US in the Civil War, for example.

So I guess I'd rather err on the side of freedom than on the side of security.

Excellent: I agree. I think that what is going on with the Patriot Act however, is that lines are being drawn for what will be considered "enimies of the state"; egregious acts, inciting social disruptions: public demonstrations, labor actions, etc, "conspiracy": where's the line on that going to be drawn?

I think that what's happening here in the US is that parameters are being drawn as the probablity of larger unrest draws closer and closer . . .

As you mentioned; "free speech zones". The college that I attened has one of those. While certainly on campus, it is a 12 x 12 benched area with a sign that says "free speech zone": one of my PS classes was held in that box to discuss it. In my view this is the following of the anti-union policy of teh "two gate system' for handling strikes. The "union gate" on the property is legally assigned as a gate "over there some place", that pickets are religated to, while the "non union gate" is in front of the company where all of the business goes on day in and day out and pickets, by legal decision, are not allowed there . . . it's a bit like a medieval siege wherein the "army" is religated to the back draw bridge and the front draw bridge is left open for daily business . . . I think also that our society is moving so fast; almost intentionally sometimes I think, that those (students) who should be studying what's going on are not and of course they come out of school rather illiterate to what was vs what is becoming.

nobody wants to be "interupted" ya'know? "I have to wait outside in the cold and rain for three days so that I can be the first to enter the store on Black Friday . . . it's like watching the lake dry up and the fish are oblivious to what's going on, they just start feeling more and more cramped, but they don't know why . . .
 
Last edited:
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?

It depends on the trade. At some level, security is necessary for liberty, at least in any practical sense. If one looks at what is needed to maximize options and opportunity, it is a combination of choice and enough security and stability to make the choices matter.

So given that, I think the debate for this is whether its a good trade. Personally, I don't think it is in this case. The main reason being that it sets the wrong tone and focus for our culture.
 
The Patriot Act allows government to listen in on private conversations without a warrant.

The requirement for a warrant is in the Constitution for a reason. Ignore it, and you open the door for government abuse of power.

Same for the power to lock people up without a trial. The right to a speedy trial is another safeguard to liberty, and so giving it up opens the door for more government abuse of power.

Depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property without due process of law is another potential abuse of government power.

Give the government enough power to abuse, and it is inevitable that it will be abused sooner or later to the detriment of liberty.

The real question is whether or not we value liberty enough to fight for it.
 
As a PROPONENT of the Patriot Act the phrase does not support my side of the discussion, so why would I use it?
 
The problem I have with the wiretapping argument is telephone poles are a public utility. The same goes for the airwaves that cellphones operate through.
 
So, I remember it coming up often early on in the debate with the Patriot Act. I'd love to see people come down on whether or not they used this argument.

Did you/do you use the argument/thought process against the provisions of the Patriot Act that, paraphrasing, "He who gives up Liberty in exchange for Security, deserves neither"?

I did, but I'd rather have more liberty.

It should be noted that the Patriot Act provisions have been used more for drug cases and other domestic crimes than for preventing terrorism.

Patriot Act used for more than anti-terror / Justice report also reveals 50 secretly detained after 9/11 - SFGate

Dan Carlin did a great podcast episode that talks about the expansion of the War on Drugs, and how the federal government uses financial incentives to get local police to pursue it, and how the government even profits from it.

Dan Carlin - Common Sense Archive
 
If your not safe....your not free....everyone has to give up some form of freedom to be safe so we can be free....most people are clueless when it comes to the patriot act...they have no idea about it...they just jump one side or the other of partisan spectrum.
I admittedly dont know enough about it....but I do fully understand there is no freedom without safety
 
Back
Top Bottom