Shortly after 9/11 and to this day, when I speak of my ongoing fear of terrorism (it’s really waned very little) and my decided “non-anger” of long lines at airports and shoe removals at the gate and such, I’m constantly given ‘the look’ along with the standard “Those who would give up a little liberty in exchange for security deserve neither” (I know that’s not the actual quote, but no one who spouts it to me gets it right either…the intent is there).
On this very board I was referred to as “repulsive” for saying I would gladly let the government search my home if it would help in capturing terrorists.
Why is it repulsive for someone like myself to say “I don’t want to be on a hijacked planes, so let’s make sure no one has a bomb or a gun before we start this vacation?”.
Or rather, where are those of us who feel helpless and scared left to go? I can not pretend that terrorism doesn’t scare me. Nor should I be afraid to say YES, I want to feel SECURE in my large convention centers, airports and tall Skyscrapers. Are we, in order to present a united front to the world, supposed to pretend that we are unfazed by daily threats? Are we, in order to express our distaste with the administration (which I certainly feel) supposed to intentionally sully their efforts in order to prove a point?
It’s been years since 9/11, but I still believe that if “THE GOVERNMENT” knocked on my door and said “we have reason to believe there was a terrorist in your house, can we look around?” I would allow it.
I guess what I"m saying is that while I do believe things like the Patriot Act are overboard, I don’t necessarily ‘despise’ having a Dept. Of Homeland Security, if only because: I WANT A SECURE HOMELAND. And I’m unclear on how this is a wrong feeling to have.
You aren’t wrong. In the face of the reality that there is a group of people dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible, some concepts become an intellectual luxury.
Neither of those things impacts your liberty, or anyone else’s. You don’t have an intrinsic right to take United’s next shuttle to Detroit; if you don’t want to be searched you’re free to drive to your destination. And if you’re giving the government permission to search your house, that’s your call. Anyone who sees those things as an impact on liberty is an ignoramus. You’re just not making a tradeoff between freedom and security there. You’re making a trade off between CONVENIENCE and security, but nobody has a right to have things made convenient.
What would impact your liberty is if I gave the government permission to search your house. Or, more precisely, if the government didn’t ask your permission first and just charged in (without reasonable cause, I am assuming.)
What most people are concerned about, at least that I see on SDMB, is things like arresting people without charge or hearing and stuff like that.
Well, pulling people out of line and searching their bags at the airport is done without permission and i have absolutely no problem with it. Wouldn’t bother me if they opened and went through every person’s bag. I just want to be safe.
Well, you agreed to have it done simply by purchasing a ticket and going to the airport. That’s very different than having the police barge into your home and tear the place apart without having to show a reason why they suspected you and having that suspicion validated by a court.
If our response to acts of terrorism is to limit freedom, then the terrorists have won. I refuse to capitulate like that, and would much rather live in a country with a risk of an occasional act of terrorism, than compromise the liberty that our forefathers died to defend.
These “security measures” are not making us safe. They are not making me feel safe. So far they have not massively curtailed my sense of being a free person, either, although they’ve annoyed me at times.
By the time they have established sufficient control over human activities to prevent terrorism, they will have made dramatic inroads on my freedom.
I’d rather have the terrorists. They can only kill me once.
But see, what you’re basically saying is that those who DO feel safe or WANT to feel safe are somehow…weaker than you. I don’t want to die in a terrorist attack, and I will cooperate with the government in any possible way to prevent that from happening. I am not willing to give up my life to prove a point.
There must be a reason why there has been no secondary attack since 9/11. We ARE a bit safer.
There’s a difference between “cooperate” and “subjugate myself to”. I doubt you really mean “any way possible,” so let’s find out exactly how far you’d go. Answer me how far you’d go to prevent a terrorist attack (Agree or Disagree with each proposition):
I would allow my car to be searched each time I entered a publicly-funded Interstate highway.
I would allow the local police or federal law enforcement agents to “scan” my home for nuclear, biological, or chemical agents, as long as they didn’t enter.
I would allow them to search my home periodically as part of “random spot checks” to ensure that nobody in my neighborhood was harboring terrorist materials.
I would allow them access to the contents of my computer and personal records to ensure that I hadn’t had contact with any terrorists.
I would allow them to monitor my telephone calls, e-mails, and letters (including packages sent to me and financial records) to ensure that I was not communicating with terrorists.
I would voluntarily wear a necklace with a GPS transmitter so that the authorities could identify and find me or my body in an emergency. I would only wear this necklace outside my home.
I would voluntarily wear such a necklace (outside my home) even if it included a microphone.
I would voluntarily wear such a necklace (outside my home) even if it included a camera and a microphone.
I would be happy to wear an audio/video/position-tracking necklace all the time if it would keep me safe from terrorists.
I would like to have such a device implanted under my skin at birth, and trust that the government would never use such a device for anything other than preventing terrorist attacks.
No one who lives in this intrinsically dangerous world is, or can ever be, “safe.”
I am not being flip. I will die. My family will die. Sooner, later, horribly, in sleep. (I think too that some things are worth dying for, and that it may be my duty to do things that will likely lead to my death in some circumstances.)
I can give up all the liberty I have, lock myself up in a padded cell in an underground bunker, and I will not be safe. Since complete safety is a pipe-dream, the rest is a trade-off and a slippery slope–give up a little liberty for a little more safety.
We dispute whether a particular infringement of liberty (why don’t they let the dogs sniff my shoes? give 'em a cheap thrill?) will result in a worthwhile increase in safety, and you may be at a different point on the slope than others.
The reason I am skeptical of safety measures which are intrusive of privacy or liberty, or even those which are mostly just inconvenient, is that nothing, nothing, not cameras in my bedroom or banning private ownership of rocket launchers or national identification cards will keep me safe. The goal is a chimera.
Fine. That’s your prerogative. If you want to allow the government to search your house and your belongings, and give up some of your privacy because it makes you feel safer, then by all means do so. No rational civil libertarian would have a problem with that. What we do have a problem with, though, is the idea that because this is okay with some people, it is therefore okay to do this sort of thing to everyone. Even if the overwhelming majority of Americans are willing to have their privacy invaded (and I doubt if that’s the case, but we’ll save that for another time), it is still an individual issue, and should be dealt with on an individual basis.
In other words, you can give the government the go-ahead to enter your home at will, but I might not want them in mine unless they specifically asked first (or have a valid search warrant). Neither one of our decisions is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, because it is our decision alone to make.
This still has no impact on liberty. A person can opt not to subject themselves to this search by not taking the trip.
In fact, if you look carefully, most airports have signs to the effect of “Any person may refuse a search if they elect to leave the airport” or something like that.
If you want to travel without being searched, you can always drive. Or you can learn to fly a plane, buy your own plane, park it in General Aviation and fly it anytime you please with your coat pockets stuffed full of box cutters and framed photos of Osama. Being subjected to a search at the airport may be inconvenient, or it may be ineffective, but it is not a violation of liberty. AHunter’s point just doesn’t seem relevant; you can’t violate someone’s freedom by renegotiating a free contract. If you don’t like airline safety procedures, don’t buy a ticket.
Jarbaby, nobody is saying you’re “weaker.” So far you’re the only person to bring it up.
But my position, (which includes the airport) is WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO TO KEEP ME SAFE…get to it. I do NOT want to be flown into a building just so I can stick it to the man. I don’t have anything to hide or fear from the government, as far as I know.
Jurph, I answer yes to everything up until 6. And even then, what do I care that the government knows I’m at Busch Gardens this weekend?
I don’t think it’s an extraordinary position to want to be protected. And i won’t apologize for being scared. And people who say WE AREN’T any safer are being silly. There have been at least a few terrorist attempts thwarted since 9/11, so obviously we are.
RickJay, no one is outwardly saying those afraid of terrorism are weaker, but posters who say “I’m not afraid to die for my beliefs…why are you?” are certainly implying it.
I AM seeing the differences here though. I appreciate the clarifications regarding infringing on liberties and following rules. It’s just something that’s been following me around for years.
The idea that I don’t DESERVE liberty or safety because i’m afraid is bothersome.
My point is that the first one is actually a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; the second through fifth ones are searches that are currently being challenged in various court cases. As Roland Orzabal pointed out, that’s your prerogative. When the police come to your door and ask if they can come in and have a look around, you go right ahead and let them in.
I’m going to ask them for a warrant. Because if they find something in my house they don’t like, they’ll have no issue with nailing me to the wall for it, even if it weren’t what they were looking for.
The guy in Oregon who was arrested and held because his fingerprints supposedly matched those in connection with the Madrid bombings? His house was searched while he was not home.
Can you tell me you’d really feel SAFER if you came home and could tell that somebody had been through all of your belongings systematically without your consent?
Statements like this are prime examples of specious reasoning. Terrorist attempts were thwarted before 9/11/2001, too. Just because we haven’t been attacked again doesn’t mean we’re safer. It means just that, we haven’t been attacked again.
If they had some reason to believe I could lead them to a terrorist, then sure! AFAIK, It’s not like they’re just going to come in, mess up my scrapbooking table, drink my diet coke and pee on stuff for fun. They wouldn’t come to my house unless I was a suspicious person.