Question by kendra r: Which is more important—national security against terrorism or protecting the rights granted to us in the Cons
Which is more important—national security against terrorism or protecting the rights granted to us in the Constitution?
Best answer:
Answer by jess
I would examine this quote from Benjamin Franklin
‘Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
he was a pretty smart guy : )
I think you have to decide if you want your country to be Run on the basis of fear of supposed evil ? Also if civil liberties are eroded what differences will there be left between the west and the areas we are meant to be be bringing the ‘light’ of democracy to ?
What do you think? Answer below!
redskater53
March 10, 2011 at 11:46 am
well if terrorists run the country, then we mite as well all be dead so our rights wouldn’t count anyway so i think national security is a tad more important
the question is that are the measures being taken good enough?
are they helping?
Scott K
March 10, 2011 at 11:59 am
They both hold equal weight. I think we need to be careful to strike a balance between the two. I think I know what you are trying to get at, and that is How much should we allow the Patriot Act to invade our constitutional rights? If at all. Am I right so far. In other words how much are we willing to give up in order to protect ourselves as a nation? Short answer: Our U.S. Consitution is the oldest consitution still in existance and it is a living document, meaning it is designed to be amended. The 14th and 19th amendements are perfect examples. If we trudt our Constitution, it will not let us down. Isn’t that amazing?
theyrtaken23
March 10, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I think protecting the rights is very important but when it comes to national security these rights have not always been absolute. It has happened many times during war so obviously our leaders have chose national security. I mean when talking about rights such as freedom of speech and etc.. i definitely think they can be set aside in times like that.
Diane M
March 10, 2011 at 1:09 pm
What, are you taking a poll?
It’s not an either-or situation. If we don’t protect against terrorism, then we may not have a country left. At least, as 911 showed us, there’s a chance that a significant number of us will be killed. On the other hand, if we don’t safeguard the freedoms in the Constitution, we won’t have much of a country left, either.
There’s always a trade-off between freedom and security. There are very few security risks in a police state, but equally few freedoms. Similarly, few things are as free as an anarchy, but anarchies are notoriously unstable. The question is how much loss of freedom is acceptable, and how unsecure are we willing to be to stay free. Everyone is going to have a different answer to that question, which is a good thing. Viewing them as a binary state – either “freedom” or “security”, no middle ground – is at best spectacularly unhelpful.