Life Vs. Liberty
Posted on December 17, 2005
There’s a delicate balance between our National Security and our Civil Liberties, that must be preserved. What the ACLU doesn’t seem to understand is this balance shifts depending upon the dangers we face. In today’s age, we face a danger unlike no other. We face an enemy that is not afraid to die, that wants to infiltrate our nation, and will try to destroy us from the inside. This is why it is key that our government fulfills it’s primary obligation; to defend the American people.
Simply put, our Civil Liberties need to be upheld, but not at the expense of security. If someone can not handle a pat down at a football game, then do they care about the security of others? I would rather be searched and feel safe, than have to worry about a terrorist attack. In the wake of the London bombings, the law enforcement agencies decided to step in in New York and do bag searches, which the ACLU opposed. That was just an example of how Civil Liberties can be adjusted to meet the security needs of the time, without being destroyed.
So now the controversy is arising again. The ACLU has continuously lost their War on National Security, but they’re still at it. They lost the bag search case, but of course they’ll appeal over and over again. Now, the ACLU has friends in the Senate, and they oppose the Patriot Act. This is sad because the ACLU is being hypocritical. They collect information on their members, but they cannot handle the United States government fighting terrorism.
Now comes the time when our Senators must take a few moments and think to themselves. What’s more important- inconveniancing people as they walk into the subway, or saving lives? What’s more important- making groups like the ACLU feel threatened or caving in to their demands and not worrying about National Security? I would rather have a government that places my safety over minor infringements of my Civil Liberties. It’s a delicate balance, and the ACLU wants to tip the scales in the wrong direction.
Alway’s On Watch talks about the same thing today.
» Filed Under ACLU, Border Control/Homeland Security, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Life Vs. Liberty”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Govnerment Surveillance Since Clinton
There is a lot of hyperventilating and emotion from the liberal press about the fact the US government can and has monitored emails and international phone calls. This was started by a PR blitz by the now out of control NY Times as they promote a com…
[...] More on this subject from Ed Morrissey, Michelle Malkin, Mac Ranger, Stop The ACLU, Dean’s World and check out Atlas Shrugs for a rundown on the Patriot Act implications. [...]
Context: Life THEN Liberty
It is instructive to note that the majority of the people who are screaming about rights lost because of actions involving national security in this time of war, are also those who prior to 9/11 were quite happily removing rights for one reason or an…
Thanks for the mention.
I recall the proverb: “Great minds run in the same channel.” Hehehe.
This was a well-written and most thought-provoking article.
If there can ever be a pragmatic balance between our national security and our civil liberties, it would be a very delicate one indeed.
Preserving it, however, would be virtually impossible precisely because that balance would be dependent upon threat levels, which can only be perceived arbitrarily due to the inexact nature of intelligence gathering.
So what are we left with? A really tough choice between tyranny and fear, which causes cognitive dissonance in the many people — both ACLU types and “Stop The ACLU” types — who would rather not make that choice.
Think about it. If you choose tyranny, it cannot be realistically limited because the many, very real dangers to our national security will always exist (throughout our entire history, America has never been without enemies who wish to destroy us) and our civil liberties will always be in the way of any efforts to confront those threats.
If, however, you choose fear instead, you will have to live every day with the possibility of all those very real threats and dangers becoming extremely real, in-your-face catastrophes.
Neither one of these options is terribly appealing to the masses who, in varying degrees, value their civil liberties about as much as they value their safety. Thus the cognitive dissonance that is symptomatic of all people, regardless of their politics, who want to have their proverbial cake and eat it, too.
So we try to strike some sort of wishy-washy balance between security and freedom, hoping that a minimum of tyranny will provide a maximum of safety.
Perhaps the mere illusion of having a balance between liberty and security is enough for most people to feel both safe and free — and even the ACLU buys into this notion with their “Safe and Free” campaign.
But this is one of those absolute, no-practical-room-for-compromise choices. If we want to be truly safe from terrorists, then we must not have our civil liberties getting in the way of those efforts.
Half-measures, special exceptions and other less-than-iron-clad policies make the fight against terrorism ineffective because they leave too many holes in the net that is supposed to catch the terrorists before they strike.
If this enemy is so determined that they are willing to die, then they are more than adequately determined to find and exploit any holes that were intended to preserve the balance between civil liberties and public safety.
So, since we’re already in grave danger because we want to balance freedom with security instead of going all the way and closing all of the holes (and nevermind the ACLU and any other foolhardy civil libertarians that might get in the way), then we might as well just scrap all of those anti-terrorism measures that threaten our civil liberties.
After all, America is the “land of the free and the home of the brave” because you’ve got to be really brave to live in freedom, terrorists or no terrorists.
Many Americans have sacrificed their safety for the sake of our civil liberties and the American people should be willing to do the same, even if we are all still really afraid of terrorists.
PS. Since I feel I can say this here without fear of being charged with “political incorrectness,” I want to wish all of the good folks here at Stop The ACLU a very Merry Christmas.
Bush let NSA listen in with no warrants
WASHINGTON — Months after the 2001 attacks, President Bush authorized the National Security Ag
To say that we face “a danger unlike no other” (which, btw, is a double negative) is to show a complete ignorance of history. In the War of 1812, Washington, D.C. was captured and the White House and Capitol were burned. Meanwhile, President Madison did not postpone the Constitution or break the law to protect the nation.
That’s not to downplay the danger of al-Qaeda and its associates. They can be dangerous, but we do not face nearly the threat that the young USA faced from the British in 1812. Osama bin Laden is not on the verge of marching into D.C.
Balancing Liberty and Security with The Patriot Act
On Friday, December 16, 2005, despite increasing pressure from the White House and its allies, 47 Senators from both parties rejected a cloture motion to limit debate on legislation to reauthorize the Patriot Act, which means that efforts to “fix” t…