with the war on terror and the war on drugs...do you think we are losing too many of our civil liberties?
438357
there is no doubt we have lost some so-called civil liberties. no bush supporter will even endulge the question, but the non-answers will not help shed light on anything. what has to be looked at is the nsa wiretapping as it relates to FISA, the several cases of reclassification of documents, and the changes brought about by the patriot act. \n\n9-11 changed everything, and obviously changes such as healing the rift between the cia and fbi needed to be addressed, as well as investigating ways to track terrorist cells within the US. but rash changes to any existing laws are not the rational approach, and it only makes sense that a heated discussion of the pros and cons of any proposed new laws be welcomed.  the scary thing here is that such discussions are not AT ALL welcomed by the administration nor by its supporters. this does two things: a) it hinders the effort to create effective legislation, and b) it reveals the apparent ulterior motives of this administration. both are quite alarming.
829735
I knew they had been doing it all along. Seriously I dont mean that to sound crazy, but I assumed the government monitored everything already. I heard along time ago from someone when I was a kid that they have super computers that filter all telephone conversations and certain words and phrases are flagged for follow up. Honestly they have always gone too far and it will never stop as long as there are people who are like well if I have nothing to hide what does it matter. If you are not willing to stand up and fight for the freedoms our forfathers died for you don't deserve them. If you are willing to give up those rights to keep you safe from a shadowy elusive terrorist you dont deserve them.
307061
Both are losers and a BIG waste of time, money, lives etc. Though many here want to "address it" with much passion, sometimes logic has to take the forefront. If you find yourself standing in a fire ant hill. Stopping harder because you figure eventually the hill will run out of ants rather than concluding no matter how hard you stomp, you will NEVER get them all, and just get the holy s*** bit out of you is ludercious.\n\nThe war on drugs. I want to laugh everytime I say that phrase. There is no war on drugs, just a scrimach against SOME drugs. But the US is a chemical nation. Want to lose weight, take a pill. Want to stop your kids from acting like kids, give them a pill. Moody? Take a pill. You can not have a party that is work a salt unless you have at least alcohol. Then when you figure in pharm(pharmasutical)parties made possible by the parents being hooked on every perscription drug imaginable. The media does no better than to dicourage it. We make lovable likeable charaters of Authur(a drunk), Mr Buttermaker(drunk baseball coach)Cheech and Chong(pot heads), the list goes on. The government could not stop Prohibition, and they won't stop drugs. They might as well legalize it so they can pay for the losing war on terror.\n\nWar on Terrorism. Interesting moniker, don't you think? \n\ntr·ror·ism (tµr“…-r¹z”…m) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.\n\nLets see. That would include sneaking onto a ship(disguised as Native Americans to boot)snatching the Crown's tea and tossing it into the harbor. But THESE TERRORIST were called PATRIOTS. My how the truth shifts when it favors the one telling the history. This so-called war on terror is a failure because no one is on the same page. The US say the insurgance in Iraq or Al Qaeda are terrorist, they say the same of the US. Back in WWII under the foot of Jim Crow Black soldiers were sent into the meat grinder of the German's Gothic Line in Northern Italy. It was thought impenetrable. ONLY the Black plattons etc were sent against it because it was a no-win mission, a death assignment. But then Lt Vernon Baker was sent with his men. As the shells started falling the White Captain(in charge of them) deserted, taking the radio WITH HIM. They had no choice but to fight on. They couldn't call in for help. They ran across the German communication lines and cut them. They then made it up the hill, taking out several machine gun nest and artillery batteries. When he was asked why he fought so hard for a country and a government that would have strung him from a tree for looking at a White woman "the wrong way", he said THIS(the USA)was the only country he had(in spite of how bad it was)and someone else was trying to control it, and he could not allow that to happen. So, I do not see it as inconceivable(as those in denial and the addle minded) that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of Vernon Bakers in the Middle East. Who feel their governmenr maybe crappy BUT IT IS THERE ONLY COUNTRY AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE SOME FOREIGNERS CONTROLLING IT. As Gandhi said while resting the British: "It is better to have one's own bad government as oppose to someone else's good government." They are the home team with way more to lose. They are not going to quit, they have no place else to go.
1044856
Your real freedoms are not being taken away by Uncle Sam... its the state governments who are doing it, one right at a time.  It looks like its all for the common good; seat belt laws, no cell phones while driving, child seats, the state taking children for suspected abuse, gun control, zoning ordinances...\n\nBut little by little basic freedoms are being erased in the name of common good.  Soon it will be so common to have restrictions placed on our behaviors and activities that we won't notice when our personal freedom is slowly taken by the state not for the common good, but as a means of control.\n\nSo don't look at the feds but at the statehouse and local government.  Its the local government who will excercise eminent domain and give you assesed value, not market value, for it so a political crony can build a strip mall or another McMansion.
1018844
Nope!!!\n\n"And what the hell is terrorism, anyway? It's not a thing; it's not a place; it's not a person. It is a political and military strategy, that's all. Having a 'War On Terrorism' is as ridiculous as having a 'War on Flanking Maneuvers'. You'll end terrorism when there's no longer anything for anybody to get pissed off about."\n\n"As for now, maybe if we looked at why people are pissed at us, we'd begin to understand. Hell, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong; it's what they perceive that motivates them. What you have to address is why they perceive things as they do. Only then will you start to get a clue. And spare me the bullshit about them hating us because of our freedom. We haven't been truly free in a long time. And now we're letting all this demagoguery convince us to give up what little liberty we have left. Big Brother Lives!"\n\n"Hack" Col, US Army
829991
Thanks for bringing up this important issue.\nMost of the things you mentioned have beneficial uses.  The danger if they are misused.  I think the Bush administration has demonstrated how our rights can be undermined.  They are talking of retaining the prisoners in Cuba for the rest of their lives, without charges or benefit of legal defense.\nThe only way to protect our rights is to participate in the process of government.  I hope anyone who reads this is ready to defend liberty with their vote on the 7th.
23883
I completely agree with Franklin we should not give up the liberties he fought so valiantly for, not for any reason.\n\nNow please tell me exactly what liberties he was talking about that you are saying we are loosing?  \n\nThe liberal press in the name of the almighty $ is the group that is pushing fear in this country because you are buying it.  Supply and demand, you are demanding a artificial fear to try to drive republicans out of the majority.  The press is suppling it by the bucket.  \n\nFor you edification I've provided a link to the bill of rights.\n\nI can only assume you are arguing that somehow IV is being challenged?  \nAmendment IV\nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nSome how you have assumed that unreasonable means never? Or that the place has not been described? Searches at airports have been described so you know it's going to happen, therefore your rights have not been violated.  Certainly a known terrorist calling you warrants a resonable search to the point of listening to the conversation by our anti-terrorism forces.
752614
Yes. Right on.\nI think our checks and balances are too removed from the people whom they affect. I seems there was a huge effort to keep control out of one persons hands, but the economic factor (often confused with civil organization) has allowed the very wealthy to become unified factors with ulterior motives, motives that are the opposite to the common good. Also the power of media has become a super power with television.  \nThese two powers combined make a power outside the checks and balances our country established as a protection from corrupted self serving tyrants. They have every ability through our system to exploit our laws by threatening the average citizen with things like unemployment, homelessness etc which we are increasingly vulnerable to as the wealth of our nation is funneled into the hands of a few. With television they can exploit the minds of the tired and depressed, who after far too much work and a severe deficiency in real human contact outside the confines of work, go to it as a drug, as a distraction and as a virtual community that is safe and non interactive.\nIn a way the idea of a figure head having the amount of power as the president is putting to many eggs in one nest, easy for an aggressive force to exploit and control. The Patriot Act is no doubt, by history's and logic's measure, a hostile takeover of the power of the constitution, so in effect it is the Anti Patriot Act. It seems ironically that these wars on intangibles make it so those who wrote the law and enforce it have a monopoly on the things they claim to fight i.e. terror and drugs. So it is just more of what we wish to prevent disguised as something else. Something anyone with morals and honor is opposed too, due to the suffering it causes and the selfish and cruel it aids. Though, that is assuming getting their information from television, a huge percent of the latter even has the information, wit and connective reasoning to come to that conclusion.
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.
312054
Yes, we have lost so much in the way of human rights since the Repuglicans took over the congress it isn't funny, Spend and spend somemore. Huge deficit, tax cuts for the very rich. No health care reform. Cutting programs for the poor. Yes, I do think it is time for a democrtatic congress. Repuglicans are so corrupt and self centered lets tax them special, like a repuglican voter tax and didn't go to church except on easter sunday tax. How about we assign people to follow them around and charge them a tax every time they lie tax. I am sure there would be a surplus after cost of doing it. There must be some more taxes that we can put on repuglicans to get us out of the mess we are in. But I am hungry now and have to go eat.
25766
The war on drugs is nowhere near over.  I was watching on the news a while back that after the tougher laws passed in Iowa reguarding the sales of certain ingredients in meth, that meth lab siezures had gone down a dramatic amount.  However, I still see people using every bit as much as before.  In my opinion, the law enforcement officials have not been working hard enough, and therefore cite the new law for less busts being made.
23409
Very doubtful today, what with the Patriot act, Homeland Security, Governments fear of new and alternative life styles, things, and people striving for need or greed in general everyday life. If we tried to be Utopian, Washington would shut us down. I know, I know I am a paranoid, but look around your world.
1126763
Do you really think it's necessary? I don't, I think upholding our freedoms and civil liberties is pretty important, and worth the risk by most people's reckoning, I think the best way to fight terrorism is to have better control on who/what comes and goes in or out of our country, and not to do business with countries that give the money to support that garbage in the first place...oil's an issue in this question, and if more people were cognizant of the relationship between pressure on the throttle and money flowing to countries that support this kind of thing, I'll bet a lot of people would drive a lot slower....but, at the end of the day, there's people that don't like America, for whatever reason, and I'd just as soon see better border controls to keep em out. Including the airports...
302383
if a government is smart, it will always provide the illusion that its people are free.  but yes, eventually i think our freedoms will be dwindle down to almost nothing but it will become difficult to point to a concert way in which we are no longer free.  look at the open and loose definitions we currently have in something like the patriot act(yeah there are examples pre-bush, but that the first that comes to mind)\n\ntake a look at the fcc laws for radio, it has limited our freedom of speech in that the am/fm means to deliver ones voice is limited to large corporations or those with enough money, while for the rest of us its illegal to micro-broadcast.\n\nor how about loitering in a dive laws that some states have, in which you can be ticketed for being an area where cops think you don't have a reason to be, they suspect you might be looking for drugs but can't prove it.  it limits our movement to places or distances from our home in a very arbitrary fashion.\n\nso things become, for the safety of the public, you have freedom of speech, but say what you are thinking, cause it might cause a problem.
95927
Brother, Our freedoms have ended long back. Its a country where people with doubts and critical thoughts are labeled nut jobs and discounted. you know what I mean. It can only get worse unfortunately unless we actively do something about it.
493153
Nobody can be completely secure.  Most of the terrorism in our country was planned and executed by our own government in order to begin the war on terrorism and take away more and more of our freedom...)(
662509
Yes I think Bush is gonna hold on for the full term. We the people are continuing to hand over more and more of our liberties in the name of safety. Were afraid of terrorism. Were afraid of crime. Hell were even afraid of people who have thoughts that aren't dictated by the media or the government. Shame really.. I remember a time when we were free to speak our mind no matter how unpopular our thoughts.Once our forefathers thought freedom was worth dieing for now we cheapening the deaths of those who died for freedom by giving it away so trivially in the name of safety.