I know there is a 4th amendment thread, but I was wondering what rights/freedoms/conveniences would you give up in the hopes that doing so would decrease the possibility of events like yesterday’s recurring?
For example, I realized that I’m a pretty brightline supported of free speech. But if I saw someone celebrating yesterday’s events, I’m not sure I could restrain myself from trying to stop them.
How much airport security would you stand? A complete ban on carryons? How long will you wait to get on a plane? And what increase in the price of a ticket to pay for additional security?
Would you support mandatory national IDs? Stricter immigration/travel restrictions? Registration of religious organizations? Any other ideas?
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania 1759
These words ring truer today then they ever did. If we give up any “rights / freedoms / conveniences” we allow these bastards to win. What we do now is carry on as a great nation, salvage what we can from the wreckage, and strike swiftly at what ever we determine caused it.
What I could give up is this countries distaste for collateral damages and political assassinations.
One of the most frequently made comments yesterday was that this was an attack on our way of life, and that it would not succeed. To give up our rights is to change our way of life, and to allow these bastards to claim victory in their war.
I submit that it is not necessary to give up rights in order to prevent these sorts of events from happening, and have starte a thread on how to deal with these issues, in which I state my thoughts.
To answer your question, I am (thus far) not willing to give up any rights. It’s times like these that Voltaire is really put to the test. Would you, in fact, defend some one’s right to express agreement and/or satisfaction with yesterdays assault on our nation? The old cliche is bandied about so frequently in times of peace and prosperity. Those who use it today are truly the supporters of the freedom of speech.
National ID’s? For what purpose? We have drivers licenses, social security cards, etc. How much more identification do we need? How would identification have prevented yesterdays attacks? As it is, all passengers are required to show picture ID before collecting their boarding pass, and that didn’t prevent anything.
Registration of religious organizations? In what way is that relevant? If it were available now, would all followers of Islam be suspect?
The answer does not lie in treating everyone like a suspect. That is the modus operandi of those who seek to do us harm, such as the Taliban. It is not our way, it is not our solution. To implement such measures is to admit that our philosophy of freedom for all is a failure.
How about placing armed security aboard planes? That wouldn’t involve sacrificing any freedom, and shouldn’t have too much effect on ticket prices.
Also, if we discover that a country is deliberately harboring terrorists, we should send in troops on a search-and-destroy mission. If anyone complains about us violating the sovereignity of said country, fuck 'em. Their right to let terrorists swing their fists ends where our noses begin.
Absolutely. We may have to give up conveniences (Manhattan and the country are highly inconvenienced as we speak). But we should be very vigilant about rights and freedoms.
When Europe suffered from an onslaught of terrorist attacks in the 70’s and 80’s, rights and freedoms were the first victims. And no-one dared to complain. The terrorists have handed the police the rights to search your home without a warrant, to tap your lines without asking a judge, to stop and search anyone without reason, to arrest an ISP because a nutcase has left questionable material on a website. The terrorists won. The Europeans lost. And I have the impression, they haven’t realized the loss.
How many of my rights and freedoms as an American citizen am I will go give up? None.
I would be willing to give up any conveniences that do not affect my constitutional rights if doing so would put a stop to terrorism. I am at a loss to determine what those conveniences might be.
As for security at the airport, flight prices, carry on restrictions etc, I don’t see how that applies to my rights. I also don’t see how any of these things would have stopped yesterday’s events. If I don’t care for the rules/procedures at the airport I have the freedom to walk, drive, bike, take a bus or a train or any other means of transportation available to get to my destination.
I don’t think that we should let a couple of cowardly terrorists take away our freedom. Especially not when so many Americas have lost their lives defending it in the past.
We live in a country that enjoys (or thinks of ourselves as enjoying and deserving) “the best” of everything. Freedom of speech and travel that is incomprehensible in a tremendous portion of the world. Wealth, in terms of $ and leisure exceeded by few. And our lifestyle is supported, in part, by exporting our culture throughout the world, with implications other countries may find undesirable. Also, requiring ready access to more inexpensive fuel and resources than we can independently produce.
I question whether we, as Americans, are “entitled” to such an artificially high standard of living.
Maybe the risk involved in living so high and free may be that we may be subject to acts such as yesterday.
And do we respond to an act of terror through “legal” means?
Or, if we react emotionally, urging assasination, seeking revenge, or cratering a foreign country, are we not approaching the level of barbarism?
I am not advocating one thing or the other. I am merely suggesting it is not an open-and-shut case, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.
Beelzebubba, I saw your thread after I posted. Sorry, I should have posted there instead of starting a new thread. Would you like to try to consolidate the 2 threads by posting a message in either yours or mine directing folks to the other?
Not at all, Dinsdale, I think this is valid as a separate debate topic. I just wanted to refer you to the other thread in which I’d expressed some thoughts on what can be done, without taking over this thread.
I am extremely hostile to the idea of giving up rights in exchange for anything at all, even though there are issues that test my belief. This doesn’t even come close.
Put into perspective the psychological impact was much greater than actual death. Compare how many people die each year in america to the maximum possible of people dead. From the census bureau I get 2,396,096. The number of deaths probably raise more each year than actual dead from this terrorist attack.
I cannot meaningfully parse the first statement. Artifically high standards? In what way are they artificial? In what way do you find “entitlement” figure into a standard of living for an economic entity like a country?
The second statement is absolutely correct: with freedom comes repsonsiblity. If anyone ever doubted this they shall no more. But there always seems to be a way to enforce and secure freedoms without infringing rights. Once I said the opposite in regards to a thread started by xenophon, but further thought in the matter, and definitely thought into this matter, does show me in the end that freedom and security are not diametrically opposed.
I always thought they were, but that is largely because of the fact that many who seek security do so at the expense of freedom, as that is a tactic which can work… but further thought has shown me that this is not a necessary tactic.
So: no, I am not willing to give up any freedoms. I am largely of the opinion that too many have been given up already over less.
A reduction in freedoms now would give the terrorists the result they were looking for.
The U.S. is hated because it is FREE. There are those in the world who can’t stand the thought of hundreds of millions of people doing whatever they please. This attack wasn’t a military attack, it had no tactical goals. It didn’t reduce the strength of the U.S. militarily, and it wasn’t a traditional terrorist attack in the sense that it was an attempt to alter policy, or get hostages released, or anything specific.
It was purely an act intended to alter the nature of American society. If you start restricting travel, banning weapons, restricting speech, and otherwise taking away those things you’ve come to demand, then the terrorist’s goals were achieved.
Instead, you should re-affirm the constitution. Do the opposite from what they want. Allow pilots to carry sidearms if they want them. Give people the ability to defend themselves. Rebuild the trade center, only bigger and better. SNEER at the bastards. Let them know that you are the meanest, toughest, most free people on the planet, and you intend to stay that way.
erislover, you beat me to it, twice (see the profiling thread)…but I’ll go ahead anyway.
What is “artificially high” about our standard of living? That it is higher than some others’?
That we have freedom of speech/press/religion/assembly, security from unreasonable government intrusion? Nothing “artificial” about that. Seem to recall some pretty smart fellas saying those were “unalienable” rights of all people everywhere. Those that don’t have them are, therefore, suffering from “artifically low” stds of living.
“Exporting” our culture? News flash - you have trouble exporting things other people don’t want. Granted, other regimes, usually oppressive and/or totalitarian, may not like the freedoms our culture stands for, but nothing so successful (people do seem to embrace at least aspects of it) could be “undesirable” to many people. And who gets to decide what is "undesirable - you? Oppressive/totalitarian regimes? Or do actual peoples get to decide, freely and openly, how they want to live and how they don’t want to live? It slays me when Westerners decry the “poisoning” of some culture, and how Place X isn’t “quaint” or “authentic” anymore due to the “invasion” of Coke, Levis, and McDs, as if that culture is there for our enjoyment and “appreciation” (on week-or-two vacations) like some favorite TV show we hate to see cancelled.
We do use a hell of a lot of resources, and perhaps that isn’t right (although who sets the “proper” apportionment is unclear to me - anyone with a weapon who thinks its unfair?). But that doesn’t mean we had this coming. Inexpensive fuel? We do pay less than many other countries - particularly European countries - but that is because they have chosen to tax fuel at a much higher rate. Their cost for fuel is “artifically high”, but that is a political decision they have made. If they want cheaper fuel, they can roll back the taxes and due without the revenue.
We may not “deserve” the material resources we’ve been blessed with by our geographic location on this planet. But that is a far cry from us not being “entitled” to our culture and standard of living. Our way of life ( I dislike that term) wasn’t given to us, nor did it materialize while we stuck our thumbs up our butts and opened another bag of Cheesy Puffs. We built it. We earned it. Or rather those who came before us did. I’m hardly what you’d call a flag-waver, and I acknowledge that this country, our society, and our culture has many problems. But I dislike this sort of …I don’t know what it is…guilt? Self-loathing? The sentiment seems to be “No one else has it this good, so we shouldn’t either. In any event, we don’t rate it” Hogwash.
Maintaining our rights and combating terrorism are not mutually exclusive. I’ll sacfifice some conveniences, hell all of them, if that will lessen the chances of further tragedy. My rights are off limits.
I’m curious - your question about “registration of religious organizations”. Would you propose that the Unitarian Church of Chapel Hill and/or its members “register” with the federal government? The Trinity Church in Boston? St Marks Episcopal Church too? Or do you mean just “those” religious organizations? Acts of terror are no more perpretated by Muslims, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians than the OKC bombing was by Protestants, Baptists, Cowboys fans , or whatever Tim and Terry happen(ed) to be.
If you’ll recall, my OP asked what “rights/freedoms/conveniences” you would give up in the hopes that doing so would decrease the possibility of events like yesterday’s recurring.
I am not sure you can draw a bright line between rights and conveniences.
Do those of you who responded “none” actually mean that you will oppose any additional “inconveniences” aimed at making airline travel safer? Why? It looks as tho you will be giving up curbside checkin. And possibly restrictions on carryons. This you consider intolerable? Is this merely an inconvenience, or a meaningful restriction on your right to travel? When does one become the other? What degree of searches (fliers must consent to metal detectors and search of carryons) are reasonable?
If you consider any additional inconveniences unacceptable, it strikes me that you might want to consider the conditions a majority of the world’s population lives in, and consider yourself quite fortunate to have such worries. Even the developed democracies of the world do not enjoy the unfettered carefree “freedoms” we do. And the world is getting smaller. How high of a cost will we pay to maintain a level of pervasive “conveniences” so much higher than anyonne else in the world?
What do I mean by an artificially high standard of living? Well, sure is handy to have armed forces to keep the cheap fuel flowing. And nice to be able to pay pennies to asian children to stitch together the overpriced sneakers on your feet. Hell no, we won’t allow those chemicals to be spread on our soil - but we’ll make them and sell them abroad. Yep, we and our ancestors worked hard to attain thos position. BTW, it was fortunate our ancestors had the foresight to eradicate and displace the indigenous civilizations, thereby gaining access to unprecedented land and mineral wealth. Yeah, we got where we are through genocide, slavery, gross pollution, etc. But now that we are past such things, no problem condemning other nations’ use of the same tools. Of course, we won’t step out of our way to help them find alternatives either. Yep, the whole world over people were clamoring for Big Macs, Cokes, and ciggies. Nope, advertising and the aggressive exportation of our products and culture had nothing to do with creating a demand.
My choice of the word “entitlement” reflected my personal opinion that too many Americans take too much of their good fortune for granted. They don’t appreciate how lucky they were to have been born in their present situation, instead of in an impoverished, wartorn country. And they do not realize how less fortunate peoples might understandably resent our good fortune.
If you question my loyalty, so be it. I enjoy the hell out of my upper middle class lifestyle. And the flag was hanging in front of my house the day before the incident.
Additional thoughts/responses:
My comment concerning registration of religions was expressing my frustration at trying to figure out what acts could be taken to prevent risks, while not overly burdening ourselves. Of course, we cannot impose restrictions on one church and not another. Or of people of one skin color and not all. In my ignorance it seems as tho certain anti-American groups have organized and operated in America under the guise of religious groups. I don’t know how to approach this. Freedom of religion and speech, right to assembly, etc.
If there is any issue I am pretty hardline on it is the support of free speech. And I was stricken by the realization that, if someone wanted to, they had every right to go out in the street and celebrate this terrorism. And no one would have any right to stop them.
First and foremost, I believe it unconstitutional for a federal agency to require you submit to search of any kind in order to travel on a privately-owned aircraft. Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t happen.
There can be security without loss of freedom. But for some reason, we choose not to look in that direction. As I’ve said in other places, current physical security at the airport is adequate. The cause of this trajedy was access to the cockpit. However, I guarantee the resolution that comes after these events will not prevent one from obtaining access to the cockpit in the future.
**
I don’t understand the question. Are you saying that, by excersising our freedom to employ capitalism in such a way that the “lower class” in America is by and large wealthier than most of the world, that we’ve brought this on ourselves?
**
So the Armed Forces are the reason the middle east sells us oil? We’re responsible for the fact that other countries have been willing to employ child labor at low wages?
But I agree, the EPA has got to go…let’s use our own damn coal.
**
I’m sorry, is this related to the discussion at hand?
**
What? You’re saying the reason people want American products is because we advertised it to them?
**
Actually, I do try to keep up with the rest of the world so I that I don’t take it for granted. I know what other people are going through, even as close as the Bahamas, let alone Egypt, or Afghanistan. That’s one of the reasons I support our style of self-government and our (initial) idea that the government should stay out of people’s lives (and businesses) as much as possible. That’s what made us such a great country to begin with. As Calvin Coolidge once said, the business of America is business.
**
I don’t question your loyalty, but I question your thought processes. You seem to be saying that, by being wealthy and prosperous, and by not giving away our wealth to others to maintain some kind of economic equilibrium, that we may have brought this on ourselves.
**
These are the days in which the cherised ideals of our forefathers are challenged. Many have never encountered this challenge before, and are confronted with the rhetoric on the one hand, and the dead on the other. We ask ourselves, is it really worth it? Would I be willing to impose a few inconveniences in return for assured safety? How much am I willing to compromise in the name of safety?
I value our way of life, and I believe in the ideals set forth by Jefferson, Washington, etc.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. And all that jazz. Well, it’s not really “jazz”, sometimes it happens. Question, certainly. Look long and hard, and understand why these ideals were incorporated into our way of life. But again, to your original question, I answer: none.
… Conveniences – as may be reasonable in order to make sure I continue to enjoy the above two; heck, I’ll even willingly add responsibilities to myself if it helps.
I have a right to live, to earn my living the way I choose, to mind my own personal affairs, to meet and hang out with folks I like, to think and believe whatever makes sense to me, to bitch and moan about issues that bother me, to move about without having to notify or seek permission from government authorities.
Having a building I’m in blown to ten billion tiny bits interferes seriously with my freedom to choose when and where and how I’ll exercise those rights.
So I will, exercising freedom, put up with a less-convenient check-in at the airport, a less-convenient parking space, heck, even a less-convenient gas price or tax bill; and acquiesce to defer my right to go do whatever pleases me, in order to perform an important service my community needs now; as long as it helps me continue to live free to exercise my rights (or refrain from exercising, if I so choose).
Oh, and BTW: It’s not about “enjoying the hell out of our upper-middle-class lifestyle.” You can enjoy an upper-middle-class lifestyle in the middle of an impoverished totalitarian state, given enough money, knowledge, and the right technical and interpersonal skills.