Question by ImmoralAmbulance: Which is more important national security against terrorism or protecting the rights granted to us?
Which is more important—national security against terrorism or protecting the rights granted to us in the Constitution?
Best answer:
Answer by oracleofohio
Protecting our freedoms, hands down.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Robert C
November 20, 2010 at 11:17 pm
no doubt protecting our rights is more important. the constitution doesn’t guarantee we won’t be attacked by terrorists. it does, though guarantee a list of rights which are being compromised to fight terrorism. kinda stupid of the politicians(not surprisingly), since it is the constitution that gives them their power. they all need to do what they expect us to do: respect the law. if we keep on losing rights under the guise of fighting terrorism, then the terrorists have already won.
Mich
November 20, 2010 at 11:24 pm
The question on face value clearly has an answer – national security. Without national security against terrorism some very important constitutional rights, paramount rights like our right to life and liberty etc, would be much more difficult to protect, or if given a sufficiently compromised condition of national security against terrorism our consitutional rights would be usurped by uncontrollable acts of terrorism. Current conditions in parts of Iraq are a model for what happens when national security is attacked by terrorism.
Another way to think about this is that for our well being in general we need the basic exigencies of life to exist before higher purposes become available.
Another perspective on the matter is that Islamic terrorism absolutely precludes the constitutional rights granted to us as US citizens. Unless I’m mistaken, fundamentalist Islam does not allow a secular, non-Sharia controlled political entity.
Furthermore, to date, all matters related to privacy and rights of US citizens vis-a-vis anti-terrorism have been within a legal implementation of our Constitution.
In extreme contrast, all constitutional rights of the victims of 9/11, for one example, were abruptly and completely violated, and many survivors’ rights were seriously and adversely affected. National security took a back seat to concerns about protecting the constitutional rights and international law during the Clinton administration.
Janet Reno having had directives from Bill Clinton, for one example, flip-flopped on the issue post-9/11:
“Osama bin Laden was initially viewed mainly as a financier of terrorist acts, and the name “al Qaeda” did not even come to our attention in the Department of Justice until late 1995 or early 1996.” Janet Reno, April 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4732236/
“The bipartisan supporters who passed the Act should be gratified to hear representatives from the Clinton and Bush administrations, including former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno, reaffirm the importance of the Patriot Act in improving the government’s ability to share information and pursue terrorists.” http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/wm480.cfm ( similarly at many other sources)