If  you were to pick Security over liberty...why?
831261
Those that desire security over liberty, - deserve neither.\n\n- Ben Franklin\n(or a close paraPhrase)\n\n.. exactly\n\nThose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.\n\nFat Americans (today) know nothing of ultimate tyranny, lack of movement, speech, and a host of other liberties we take for granted. If (when) America falls, - it's because we listened to the liberals, which preaches communication,... then compromise,... then (diversity) accommodation,.. then embrace,... then 'overthow'. With tyranny as a 2-tier society with the few-over-the-many.
350920
Clearly liberty.  By placing limits on government power, individuals are given liberty of thought, speech and action.
351032
As the saying goes, limit to ones freedom is when it encroaches someone else's.  I would draw a parallel here to answer your question.  \n\nTHe line to sharing liberty is where it diminishes the country's overall capacity for liberty.  It is just impractical to grant refuge and peace for all who are seeking a better life and taking advantage of the US not to mention the huddled masses.\n\nHow in the world can we share liberty considering one aspect, of health coverage, when 40 million Americans have no medical insurance?  when going at the current rate, Medicare would be bankcrupt in less than 30 years?\n\nWe can only afford those whose lives are in danger if turned away for now.  Until we get our houses in order, that's where I would vote the line to be drawn.
307301
If you give up freedom for security, you'll end up with neither.  This is paraphrasing a statement made by that Ben Franklin guy several years ago :)  I think it's true, though.  Who cares if you are safe, if you have no freedom? If I locked you up in a box and kept you under my bed, I could totally protect you and keep you safe from everything... but would it be worth it?
1111400
as protection or security
1104216
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.
36566
Your country can only be free if there are certain rules to ensure your freedom. If everyone were completely free from rules, we would be spending most of our time guarding our property.
425684
I speak from across the fence on this matter, but I will let you know what I hear most often. The Patriot Act that has broadened the government's ability to seek information from it's fellow citizens has left some more liberal voters upset. They feel that the government's noose of power has grown a bit tighter, and I assume they foresee a future government domination over the people of this nation. I do not know of any firsthand accounts where someone's privacy rights have been infringed upon, or violated. Not that I wish there was, but there doesn't seem to be anyone personally hurt by the Act. Personally, I've felt that as long as man would uphold his responsibilites to treat his fellow man with love, and respect there would be no need for government at all. But we both know that we fail to do this, therefore creating a need for government. So if the privilages we enjoy so dearly seem in danger, I believe it is because of our own faults. I hope that this has been helpful.
877310
Many prefer security to freedom, becuase they don't ever attempt to utilize their freedoms, so they don't realize when they have lost them.\n\nI'm from New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state. And I try to remind people that we only have those freedoms that we can defend. And we only have those rights we choose to fight for.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
154424
I think there is a balance but Bush has overstepped that in favior of taking away our right to privacy in the name of the war on terror. Terrorism does exist however I think that if we give up rights then the terroist have won. We need to stick to the things in our constitution that made our country free and great.
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.
987002
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety--Ben Franklin\n\nMost often paraphrased as: Whoever would trade liberty for safety doesn't deserve either one.
221469
Liberty is the essential heart of freedom.  Liberty means being able to choose one's own actions, without intrusion by government.  Every law that restricts your movement, your actions or your words is one that restricts your liberty.\n\nPrivacy is the notion that the government will not intrude upon actions that you intend to be private.  For instance, intercepting someones mail violates their privacy, as it is expected that only the recipient of the mail will read it.\n\nEvery infringement upon privacy can therefore potentially result in a infringement of liberty.  For example, a wiretap could lead to an arrest.\n\nPeople have a right to privacy, that is, they have a right to expect that the government will do as little as necessary to intrude upon their rights.  This right is expressly provided for in the bill of rights.  These rules govern due process.  This is why the police must obtain a warrant to do a search.
41247
There is a price for our freedom and security. I will have to go with freedom. In freedom comes the security and stability our great nation needs. However we need to stand by the decisions that have been made. Children need to feel free and secure. And as parents we need to set that path for our future. Well the only way we can become the greatest nation is for us to pull our heads out of our 4th point of contact and really desire and respect the sanctaty of respect for our leader(s). How can we expect other nations to respect and to fear us when we dont respect our leader? We belittle him and make fun of him. Why? because we know that we can't make the right decision. This world is about damn if you do and damn if you don't. Either way someone isn't happy. As a nation we need to become one and support our freedom. Let those know that we are greatful for their sacrifices.
701168
There is no such  thing as security.  Given that your decisions will not be based on fear.  to seek security is a fool's errand and will never lead to sound policy.
789946
I am an American citizen first....\nI don't care about military dominance, but \nI want to be safe in my own country...
839907
Relax pal. I come from the X-Soviet Union. You are not loosing any liberties. When it does become too "secure" people usually vote it out in this country. And that is why I prefer to live here, and not there.