I suggested earlier that giving up freedoms in the name of safety does not protect someone from terrorism, and I pointed to England. (Read it here).
I got a couple of rebuttals in person, and one on my website. Everyone trying to make the point that the London bombings were smaller in scale and probably reduced freedoms had something to do with that. Then saying further, that if we gave up more freedoms, we'd obviously be safer.
I think that's rubbish. First, let's consider that that somehow sets up this notion of an exchange rate between people's lives and freedom, as if we just keep squeezing people's freedoms until we've somehow rediscovered our own warm fuzzies when we lay in bed. That's a very scary notion, all the more so because the majority's notion of security could change to something more sinister. What then?
Secondly, if giving up liberties really was the path to more security, then obviously places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia should never experience a terrorist attack. People in those countries have very few liberties compared to citizens in the US, but sure enough, there have been attacks in all of those countries.
So, how about it guys? Everyone who will sign on the dotted line to give up their freedoms, how much are you willing to give? Would you be willing to live in a place like North Korea if it meant you were safe from terrorist attacks? Or like Afghanistan during the Taliban? Because there comes a point where the terrorist you're in danger from ceases to be some radical working against the government and becomes the government itself.
Alright, Maurice. I never thought I'd hear myself say this but you are right. The question is...if taking civil liberties away isn't the answer, than what is? I know that you, like me, have absolutely nothing to hide. I don't care who digs around in my life as long as they aren't trying to steal my identity and kill my credit rating:) How far are you willing to go to protect civil liberties? Should there not be an FBI or CIA? What about those who find loop holes or use grey areas to catch criminals? Are they just as guilty as the criminal?
Currently, I am not too worried about my civil liberties. Probably because very few of them have been forced on me. One that comes to mind is the airport.
I hate being searched at the airport. For any of Maurice's readers who have never met me, I am barely 5'2" and weigh less than 100 pounds. What could I possibly do to anybody? It never fails that my carry-on bag is always swabbed (inside and out) for something and they search me with that stupid wand thing. And I know exactly why. I am a high energy person and have difficulty standing still because I hate lines and waiting. That doesn't mean I'm carrying explosives.
I notice the more I travel, the shorter my temper is becoming. I simply do not like my personal space invaded or a stranger going through my belongings, especially when I am carring dirty laundry back from my vacation. That's gross!
Unfortunately, I do not know a better way that security could be handled at the airports. I have no choice but to suffer through with the idiots who are incapable of taking off their shoes and removing their laptops from their cases while they are waiting on line. Why am I the only person who knows how to multitask in these situations?
Maurice, if you know of a better way to protect us from terrorists while also protecting our civil liberties, I am all ears.
Now for a while I thought I'd just keep quiet about this subject, but this repeated review of rights VS security prompted me to sit down and write out a few thoughts to share with you. The whole thing is just a big Faustian dilemma. Should we willingly give up our rights to the "devil we know" (our government) in order to keep us safe from the ones we don't? The vast majority of America (sadly) is never going to know just how far is TOO far when their rights are in question. The only way to do this for most people is to simply keep giving up their rights until they realize that a line has been crossed and there is no longer and equitable balance between the security they feel and the rights which have now become a distant memory. In other words...Watch that first step, it is a doozy....... There is, of course, a certain amount of understanding in society today that the police or law enforcement/government are there to protect you. Kind of the, "They'll kill the wolf so I don't have to" mentality. Maurice and I have had many a discussion about the role of the police/law enforcement officers in our society (partially sparked by the fact that I am one).
For years now, Americans have already been living with the fact that enhanced national security will have a lasting impact on their daily lives for the foreseeable future. For most Americans it is seen as a necessary evil. That being said, you have to watch those who are removing YOUR freedoms. Ask questions, ask why. It is your RIGHT to do so. You said that they could have a cookie, fine. Just make sure it's not the whole bag. People have to realize that by the time you've decided to hand over your rights or personal security/privacy/safety to anyone (government included) you've already taken a momentous step in creating an issue for yourself. It is one thing when you do something like that with full understanding of what is being done and why, but this just isn't the case in our world today. People don't understand (and some just don't care) where their rights are going or in some cases why they're being taken away. When you do it more than once, giving up more and more of the rights others died defending, you are falling prey to the most insidious of evils. This is the subtle side of destruction. In this case it is the destruction of your rights. I mean, soil erosion doesn't seem like a big deal, but given enough time.... it’ll bring down a mountain. With a few minor exceptions, virtually all the powers conferred to law enforcement/government with the Patriot Act were there already. The Patriot Act just streamlined the process by sidestepping many civil rights, creating a faster and "more efficient" way for law enforcement and government to do their job. The checks and balances our lives are based on were slowly removed by chipping away at our rights. In many cases once those rights are gone, it'll be for good or quite some time (if the bill/law which removed them from you even has a "sunset date"). You (as an individual) will now no longer have the option to say "Uh, yeah....remember when we took away my ability to travel across state lines without declaring my intent, purpose of trip and duration of visit? I think that may have been too much."
I'll be honest here. I make no attempt to hide the fact that as an American Law Enforcement Officer, I feel better knowing that I am able to keep myself and my family protected (on a certain level). I feel better knowing that I have the training and understanding to defend many of my rights myself. Sure it isn't the reason I got into this line of work but it sure is a big reason I keep doing this job. Like I said before, it is about striking an equitable balance between the security we NEED (not what might work) and the rights we already have.
I also have some bones to pick about Jeff's comment on freedom of the press too (see Freedom and The Repeated London Bombings on 7/22/05). Specifically, he said "MI-5 has already stopped several attempts at previous bombings by Islamic terrorists in the last year or so, but we haven't heard about it, because of the press restrictions in Britain..which is a good thing, it doesn't let the bastards know they they're onto them." Now I understand the point you're trying to make here Jeff but your logic just isn't sound. Let us play a little "What If". If I was a terrorist and I decided to blow up Big Ben at precisely noon on a Friday, when 12:30 comes and goes and still no explosion has taken place, what do YOU think I'd be thinking as I mull over the possible options of why things didn't go my way? Do you really think that these guys are sitting around waiting to have the British media (or any media for that matter) tell them exactly why their bomb didn't go off? Sure, the media may confirm something for them but guess what...they're thinking how much MI-5 sucks cause they stopped yet another of their terrorist bombs. These guys know when they've been made. Curtailing our freedoms or pointing to how well a different country is doing with FEWER rights is just a waste of time and a step in a very wrong direction for the United States.
There are logical steps that can be made towards a stronger nation without infringing on our rights. Simple steps like better, open cooperation in our "intelligence community" would be a simple efficient step towards a common goal of protecting our nation by utilizing all the vast resources at their disposal---together. Things like that don't have to cut into our rights and yet they make sense. I've rambled on for long enough so I'll leave you with three things to think about and then call it a day. First off, check out one of the tag lines for the new movie "V for Vendetta". It kind of applies to this whole conversation. Second, Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’
And last is one of my favorite quotes. It is from a French historian named Alexis de Tocqueville. He visited America in 1835 and had this to say about the Land of Liberty: "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
I must say that what Laura said, I almost completely, totally concur. Brian also makes some very valid, interesting points, but I respectfully don't agree with quite all of what he says. My main point is, that I am willing to sacrifice my time at the airport, although like Laura, I tend to be impatient and highly irritable in said situations, but if it means deterring another attack, so be it. I'm willing to have my bag, or backpack, looked through, by either a fellow passenger (which is now occurring in London, according to my friend Lisa who lives there and travels the bus/tube system regularly) or a security/police officer, just to ensure that I'm not carrying explosives or something of that nature. Sure, it does somewhat intrude on my privacy, but that is now the price that one pays to travel nowadays, because others have ruined it for us in the vast majority of law-abiding citizens. Sure beats being on that aircraft that crashes into a building, or helping pick up body parts off the street, or being pulverized and buried 250 feet underground by a Tube bomber.
I will reference this article that I read on MSNBC, and simply say that I think this is well-written, and I believe it pretty much summarizes how I feel about the said issues. I encourage all of Maurice's readers to read this, and give him (or me) feedback.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8758761/