WOULDNT WE BE ALOT SAFER IF WE HAD AN EMPORER OR SOMETHING WHO DID ALL OUR THINKING FOR US? I MEAN IF WERE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG WHY DO WE NEED CIVIL LIBERTIES WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. THEN THE GOVERNMENT COULD JUST THROW ALL THE TERRORIST AND BAD PEOPLE IN JAIL. THEY WOULDNT EVEN NEED TO HAVE A TRIAL BECAUSE THE POLICE WOULD NOT HAVE ARRESTED THEM IF THEY WERNT BAD PEOPLE. AND WHO NEEDS TO WRITE STUFF THAT IS BAD? SO WE REALLY DONT NEED FREEDOM OF PRESS OR SPEECH BECAUSE WE KNOW WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG THE GOVERNMENT CAN TELL US THAT.HOW BOUT WE JUST MAKE GEORGE KING GEORGE AND HE CAN SORT IT ALL OUT FOR US?
207487
They wanted to make George WASHINGTON a king, but he didn't want it. He knew better. He'd be blamed for anything that went wrong anyway, and if his heirs were in power, they would suffer for it. \n\nWhat if the government made a mistake? Or what if the next king was lazy or selfish or cruel? Hereditary government only works if the ruler is responsible. Bad rulers make life hell for the people. \n\nBy the same token, any system of government needs a way of being corrected (or overthrown) if they don't do their job. There is no guarantee that a republic (like America, as the pledge to the flag clearly states) or democracies (like Communist countries) will be any better than the people they are made of. \n\nI am not going to address some of the specific points in your question, because I think you know this already, you are not serious in asking; you are just trying to be thought-provoking.\n\nAs we have seen in our own lifetime, even in Commmunist countries that began with the best of intentions, power acted to preserve itself and the people in power acted to maximize their influence. They began on the assumptions that people were inherently good and willing to share, and that they only needed to be educated. The governments of those nations fell because those are false assumptions.\n\nThey became Communist dictatorships like Cuba, and when they had taken over all the miliatry power so that the people could not revolt directly, there was no other way but to wait until they collapsed internally under the weight of the unrealistic economic predictions of their own system: You see, there were not enough barbarians outside and they had seen to it that they could not generate their own internal barbarians, and so they had to wait until they grew weak enough to collapse at the touch of market forces. \n\nTry talking to someone who lived under a totalitarian regime, and they will tell you how much better America is. Try to call America an oppressive regime and those who have actually lived under them will laugh in your face.
193880
What is your suggestion?  Do we need greater surveillance?  Or will our problems be solved by the meeting of a variety of great thinkers with diverse philosophies?\n\nGreater surveillance impinges on the rights of the many to protect the lives of the few.  We must be careful to consider the long-term consequences of greater surveillance.\n\nThe collaboration of a variety of great thinkers, however, would be valuable as we navigate through these difficult times.  (Hitler does NOT constitute a great philosopher, though!)
244419
Anyone who is allowed in this country for whatever reasons has to abide by the rules if they commit any crime regardless if they have been jailed should be sent back to where they came from.  If there life was in that much danger in their own country they should just be so grateful they are safe in Britain.  But are we safe in Britain?  Does anyone care?  I'm afraid the politicians are too busy lining their own pockets and bonking their staff to care about the real issues.
626627
It is the age-old question of liberty versus security.  A totalitarian society, with no freedoms, is very safe and secure; in contrast, a society with no laws would provide the maximum of individual freedom, but no security.  Our country is a balance, and it is a balance that shifts depending on the external situation.  War time tends to make people anxious, and people become more willing to sacrifice their rights.  The argument basically goes, what's the point in having rights when you are dead?  However, the courts are supposed to be insulated from political pressures, and are supposed to merely interpret the Constitution and all laws passed under it.  Courts tend to do this because judges are often able to look at a bigger picture, and because the questions that judges are supposed to answer are narrow legal questions involving legal interpretations.  As soon as the American people believe that the country is secure, those fears will be assauged and people will once again be more concerned about their own liberties.  Of course, there are always distinct groups of people, such as conservatives, liberals, and libertarians (those who basically believe in a minimum of restrictive laws).  That, however, is a topic for another time.
1148
I am not a Republican, but I play one on TV...:-) Seriously, I believe that they feel trading some freedom for more security is a wise policy.  I understand the need to feel safe, and I am generally in favor of measures that increase our security.  However, that does not extend to the Patriot Act, which I see as a slippery slope away from what America is supposed to be.
565844
Here's a theory, maybe the government is using the media. Knowing they will report everything they hear, the government claims tactics they will use against terrorism which are actually false. The terrorist sects read this and change their tactics, maybe making it easier for us to catch them
561722
there are inalienable human rights, agreed upon in the Geneva Conventions, that apply to all humans.  Though they may ultimately be executed, they are afforded the right to due process.  This prevents using some label like "terrorist" to rob just about anyone of their rights and have them killed.  Like in the days of the Salem witch hunts- all you had to do was call someone out as a witch, and they lost all their rights and were burned at the stake.  If terrorists had no rights by law, then if the system wanted someone destroyed, all you have to do is accuse them or frame them as terrorists and you've got them canned.  At least with due process, the system would have to really spend a heck of a lot of time and effort on pushing a falsely-accused person through the system.  It's always doable, but with due process, framing someone is harder to pull off and there are a lot more chances for the plot to unfold.\n\nWhen people defend human rights rollbacks by saying "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear!" it's not true.  We're founded on the principle that we have the right to overthrow our government if it fails to work for the people (Declaration of Independance) and if due process is taken away, we lose that power because the government can annhialate anyone they perceive as a threat.  I hate to sound like some sort of extremist or anarchist, which I'm not, but let's not forget our founding documents and what concepts this country was built on.
369161
I'M  WITH YOU.\n\nAll these security measures that have been implemented to give us  "security" will one day be used to regulate and control us.\n\nDear old Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would surrender freedom for security deserve neither."\n\nThink about it. If a government or people in the background that influence a government was/were afraid the people may one day get fed up with them and stage a revolt what measures would they put into effect to prevent that?\n\n1) control their ability to move around quickly.  \nAirport security, travel records of buses and trains.   ID's.   There was even talk of a (GASP) NATIONAL ID!\n\n2) track all large money deposits.\nRequire banks to report anything larger than $5,000.  It would take money to stage a rebellion so tracking it would warn the government who is moving money where. They just get a warrant to search your property and find the tools of a revolt and lock you  up before you can do anything to get rid of the abusive bastards.\n\n3) Squash them like a bug. \nUse the military act to lock up suspected terrorists with NO trial and they NEVER see a lawyer.\n\nDo you realize that with the passage of the most recent law, the government can designate anyone (you) as a terrorist and lock them up forever?\n\n4) Use issues that will divide the people.\nThat will prevent them from working too closely together.  Abortion, gay rights, health care, and now the Iraq mess. That should hit about 95% of the population shouldn't it? Get them fighting, arguing amongst themselves so they don't concentrate on what is really happening in the background....\n\n5) Use cameras.\nSo we can watch who goes where and catch anyone talking against the beloved people in power.\n\n6) Pretend we don't mind if they have guns to defend themselves, but slowly learn who has them so they can be collected one day.\n\nGee does any of that sound familiar?\nIn the last five years all of that has been put into place. More regulation than in the whole 200+ years since this country declared independence.\n\nAmericans are about to be subjugated and they are too complacent to know it.
566368
I agree with you. How dare newspapers exercise Freedom of the Press? How dare the courts enforce the system of checks and balances required in the Constitution?\n\nThese traitors should all be shot. Maybe we could build some concentration camps and round up all of the enemies of America. Then, without holding trials, we could torture them or detain them indefinitely. That will teach those bastards not to stand up for freedom and the American way!
431089
What a brilliant topic!  You coulld write heaps on this.  Three items I'd be prepared to give up? Let's see, I object to too much government interference in my life, but acknowledge the need for a central organising power.  So, perhaps look at what changes have happened, especially since 9/11, to personal freedoms. And what people have seemed to accept, more or less willingly, in order to ensure safety.  It's much easier to list three items you WOULDN"T give up.  I wouldn't give up right to free speech, for example.  It's too important.
126148
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.
20062
The media does have information to most things, for example I read books 4 years ago about reprecussions of certain policies that look as if they are prognosticators, some of this stuff is not a seceret. I agree that people's information is limited more than we think through the media. Conservatives complain about the liberal media and liberals about the conservative media. What Bush is doing is no comparison to the crimes that Sadam commited? Well, I don't fully agree with that and I could  engage in a discussion about that if anyone wants to email me @ bennymokey2001 on yahoo, but with that argument someone could say well Hitler was horrible nothing else matters crime wise, oh Bin Laden did this everybody else gets off free. "Americans are so stupid in general thinking that their civil liberties are being violated by allowing the patriot to continue?" How is the government looking at what you check out from a library not neoMcCarthyism? I serisously doubt that any library has any materials that preclude that you are a threat to the state. I don't have anything to hide either. But I wouldn't want to be followed around and watched because I read some book or had a conversation. The President is above the law but should not be as the role of the executive branch is to reflect, not dictate the temper of the people.
24995
You have a very good point and for all i know you could be the very person you are talking about. If i was the NSA i think i would be asking that very same question. They probably are reading this. But  I think we have the right to our own opinion and i dont think my opinion about the goverments going to change anytime soon. I would tell them too that they could be doing better things with there money, than spying on me or you.
2722
Seriously we don't. The Gov. been into our freedom long before the Patriot Act., to know our every move all they need is our SS# ( I remember when this was only used to get a job, now you better know it without looking at it or you're not who you say you are).  Congress knowing this and to (as if they were doing us a favor) look good denied the extention.
450131
your on the right track buddy many including me didnt notice and kind of didnt realise yet youve kind of worked it out for your self ,many people just go on about there lives and it doesnt even occur to them our governments could be working against us .all through out history governments and people that put them selves in high places eventually try to enslave the people they are suposed to be working for ,yet people dont seem to learn this lesson and history repeats itself .the main way in which they do it is by problem ,reaction,solution.they create the problem ,then they get the reaction from the people and then they give the solution in which they pass laws that affect the rights of the people yet the people dont see any thing wrong in that because the government is there to help us right ?these laws they pass will end up affecting us all .this subject is so vast and goes so far back that the picture is so big alot of people find it hard to comprehend any way i was lucky to stumble acrosss this link from someone on here and it totally woke me up to whats going on around us http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm  any way from everything youve said your on target.\n\n"people that give away neccesary liberty for tempoary safety deserve neither liberty or safety" benjamin franklin
573880
If you think you get a bad deal, feel free to commit a crime and spend your time in prison, clothed, fed, doctored (poorly), confined, censored, beaten, extorted and raped.\n\nOr try this answer:  you ask why does the US Government have to follow the law, and isn't free to do whatever it wants, to criminals? Maybe because if it doesn't have to follow the law, it doesn't have to when it deals with those who aren't criminals either.
438778
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.