What if 9/11 hadn't happened, would there still be limits on civil liberties?
93477
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."...The Mysterious Stranger\n\n-Mark Twain
424036
First thing, most people get the quote wrong.\n\nEveryone agrees (pretty much) that temporary or minor sacrifies are not a big deal. Or if you don't, how many are sacrificing their liberties by wearing a seatbelt in the name of security?\n\nThe issue, as many see it, is whether we should sacrifice permanent or essential liberties, in the name of temporary or illusionary security ("...deserve neither liberty nor security").\n\nHow many people actually believe that the airport security would stop a determined intelligent hijacker, other than by shear luck? But it makes most people feel better, so we give up those liberties in the name of illusionary security.\n\nAccording to some current polls, the majority of US citizens agree that we should allow the government to eavesdrop on anything they want, all in the name of security against terrorists. But how many really believe that out of the 300 million people in the US, and nobody knows how many billions of phone calls and emails per day, that the 6 people actually plotting the next terrorist attack (I'm guessing, no I don't have firsthand knowledge) will be caught?\n\nWould we all be safer if police could just grab anyone at any time and search them? Or if all weapons were illegal? Or if all phone calls had to be pre-approved and were always monitored, thus limiting each person to 1-2 calls per day? Or if people had to have federally approved licenses to check out books from the library, and the government could decide who was allowed to read what? Or if everyone had their federal SSN/ID# tattood on their forehead? Probably. But are those sacrifies worth the gains?\n\nIs it worth removing constitutional protections to gain security? Maybe a little. Probable cause, emergency circumstances, other exceptions on an as-needed basis. But there's always a slippery slope. There's always a point where it becomes too much lost for too little gain.\n\nOur country, right now, is figuring out where it thinks the lines should be. And this choice is likely to have a significant impact on us for decades to come.
803991
Absolutely not. Men and women fought, died and were horrifically wounded in 2 world wars to ensure freedoms that included a range of civil liberties that we now take so much for granted that we seem to care less as they are being progressively eroded by those in positions of power in this country. We are the most spied on citizens in the "free" world, and our freedoms are being taken away by the day. Those vociferous people who constantly repeat the politician's and police mantra that "if you have done no wrong, you have nothing to fear" will be the first to complain when we are subjugated, monitored and controlled to such a degree, in the not too distant future, that they are no longer allowed to even voice their protest.  We are calmly sleep-walking into a totalitarian police state, and most of the responders in this forum appear to think that's fine. I despair for our future, and our liberty, when you have so blithely let it go.
230997
i believe in certain situations it would be permissable. for example, if what somebody is doing affects another person or group in a negative way then the government should be allowed to step in. the government works for us as a whole, not each individual person. we are allowed certain freedoms and to do most things the way we want to but there are limits on everything. if protecting society by limiting one person's freedoms is the best plan of action then the government should have every right to do so
747180
concidering how our govenment couldnt even prevent 9/11 from happening or FIND Bin Laden, trust me, the govenment isnt as capable as they WANT you to think they are. Theyd rather control thru fear and misinformation.
43362
Good question however not an answer you might be looking for. We have had wire taps for year and years before 9/11 was even put into thought. On a legal stand point you cant put a tap on anything without 1) legal and sufficient cause and you most certaintly cant go to a judge and accuse someone of being a terrorist without sufficient  proof. I honestly dont believe that we would have been able to intercept any conversations regarding 9/11 unless somehow the signal was intermixed with someone else phone call and they were able to tape it or if someone happened to over the conversation by just passing by them.
1110430
Of course!\n\nWho knows, maybe 9/11 would never have happened. Wouldn't that be nice? And even so, Gore would have leapt out of that chair and he certainly would not have squandered the opportunity to pull the nation together as one. We would almost certainly not be entrenched in this fool's errand of a conflict in Iraq, and Iran wouldn't be playing silly buggers either... probably.\n\nWhat else? Well the deficit wouldn't have happened. Gore would have capitalized on the surplus that Clinton left behind. The rich would have a little less money in the bank, while the middle class would have about the same, maybe a little more. The poor would still be poor but their future might be brighter and definitely not just plain ol' bleak. We certainly wouldn't be giving tax funds away for fun while Social Security needs all it can get.\n\nMaybe everyone would be on the way to having healthcare coverage, including all those millions of children who we really owe it to. Abortion would still be a choice instead of on the way to becoming a distant memory.\n\nThe tsunami and Katrina victims would have been helped within hours... instead of several days to a week later. And the amount of goodwill spread by this country around the world would be cheerfully received. We would still count dozens of other nations as our allies instead of as pissed off neighbors. Vicente Fox wouldn't have decriminalized drugs just to piss us off. Colin Powell would still have a chance at the presidency someday instead of having to hang his head in shame. The UN wouldn't consider us thieves and liars at all future UN summits. Cheney would be back at Halliburton ripping off whoever he can and Rumsfeld may have resigned and just be talking gibberish to the television.\n\nMost importantly, our government wouldn't be blatantly breaking the law and the Constitution, lying about it, and then saying they're not breaking any law when caught. They wouldn't be spying on innocent Americans. They sure wouldn't be using issues such as illegal immigration and gay marriage as a distraction tactic.\n\nAnd I firmly believe that Gore's approval rating would definitely be outside of the toilet.\n\nInstead we got Mr. Loser guy and his comically pathetic cronies... and we're going to be in a world of hurt for decades to come.\n\nThanks Mr. Bush, I hope you enjoy all the money.\n\nAnd to Mr. Gore, if by some weird quirk of fate you do read this... please run for President in 2008. We've been without one for nearly six years now and it's really starting to show.\n\n\n[My friend Answerman is absolutely correct. Katherine Harris (who was probably doing Jeb at the time) made the decision. She's one of Bush's "heck of a job" people. Meanwhile, in Ohio in 2004, the Exit Polls told the exact opposite story to the supposed count. Since that is completely illogical -- and has NEVER happened before -- we can assume the whole thing was rigged. The illegal conduct was aided by the lack of any accountability in the form of a paper trail. For the Exit Polls to contradict the results requires everyone in Ohio to blatantly lie about their vote, which is 100% improbable.]
988960
There will always be limitations due to interpretations from the various courts.\n"...the freedom of speech" does not include yelling fire in a theater but apparently does allow lying or burning the flag.\n"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Does regulation or registration of firearms infringe this right?  Felons are denied this right as are children.  Perhaps limitations, but reasonable ones.
374829
I could happen. Homeland Security is probably using an automated monitor program to assess high risk comments that suggest further observation is required. Does that sound paranoid? If you look closely at some of the things the US gov is doing right now you would be shocked. Thanks to the Internet and our voluntary use of it, we have less privacy than at any time in our past. Big brother is alive and well.\n\nOh, and not to step on too many toes but free speech really isn't free any more. That dream is merely a fantasy. 911 gave the feds a chance to enact an unheard of degree of control. Now the government is passing some of the most anti-humanitarian legislation imagineable.
545814
I don't know that I would go so far as to say they would reach for imperialism, but it is true that governments will take advantage of the fear caused by terrorism to usurp some of the citizens rights.  We saw this after 911, and it will be a long time before it gets set right again.
688818
It's hard to guess, but I'll take a shot:  9/11 would probably still have occurred.  Gore would most likely have gone into A'stan as a result of the attack.  Saddam would still be in power as I doubt Gore would have had the political will to confront Iraq.  Chances are that Bin Laden would still be alive (as I believe he is today).  The economy might be a little worse off, due to Gore's reluctance to engage in cutting taxes or spending on entitlement programs (even though Bush hasn't been much better in that regard) and appeasement of the enviromentalist and their religious adherence to the Kyoto Protocols.  Assuming he would have been reelected in 2004, Gore would have been able to shift the Supreme Court to the left with more pro-abortion, anti-2nd Amendment justices not to mention placing a more liberal chairman on the Federal Reserve board.  That's about all I can think of.  Frankly, beyong Iraq and the SCOTUS appointments, I don't see much difference.  Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan hack who hasn't been paying attention to how little difference there is between the two mainstream political parties these days.
1061750
If the liberals had their way....we would be sitting in an exploded country.....with smoke pouring out toward the oceans...and the ACLU proudly breast beating...because no civil liberties were sacraficed in the process....
946500
It depends on how free you think people should be.   In spite of the rancor of the liberals about the Patriot Act and the MCA, our freedoms have not been affected, one iota.\n\nTry practicing Catholicism or Atheism in Iran.\n\nTry asking a question like this in Iran.
961032
That's a little over 5 years, so is it Fair to give Bill Cinton credit for no attacks for the 7 years from 1993 to 2001? If you're logic isn't flawed both are true, also if Ronald Reagan hadn't fled Beirut would that have prevented attacks on American soil in the first place?  After all it was that incident the Bin Laden states poved to him Ameican had no stomache for casualities and escalated the threat. I can use your logic to extrapolate to the same type of conclusions you're reaching for but reach an entirely different conclusion
492830
Unfortunately, we are losing our freedoms and we don't seem to care or are too ignorant to see that fact (as evidenced by some of the earlier responses).  There have always been attempts to make inroads into our civil liberties (guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States), but at least during most of those times past those attempts were veiled.  Now, there is absolutely no attempt to cover the erosion of American freedoms.  What's scary is the fact that the majority of Americans don't seem to be paying attention and the majority of the ones who are paying attention don't care.  We point a finger of shame at other countries that deny these rights to their people and then we turn around and remain silent while our government does the self same thing.  Yes, these things are not done to the same degree in most cases, but you have to realize that erosion's of freedom ALWAYS start small.  Saddam Hussein didn't start where he finished.  Do I think that the United States will ever get that far? Of course not.  But, we have already come so much farther than our Founding Fathers wanted to go.  Even worse than all of this is the fact that the few people who see what is happening and are speaking out about it are IMMEDIATELY and FALSELY labeled as terrorist.  Terrorism/McCarthyism; same thing different generations.
304958
You're right, 9/11 didn't happen; Section 32 hid the Truth, there was no third gunman on the grassy knoll, Elvis isn't dead, we never went to the Moon, the holocaust didn't happen and aliens didn’t visit us from another planet at Roswell, NM in 1947
989738
I think true free speech is limitless, but if you say something false that incriminates or otherwise harms others, the fact that you harmed someone would be a violation of law.