Ben Franklin stated, "Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both." Do you agree with Franklin? Why or why not? Consider the NSA, Stop, Question and Frisk policies, the Patriot Act, etc...
I agree with Franklin for the most part. There are already systems in place that limit some of our freedoms in certain situations, and so far those have proven to be beneficial. One of these was determined in the court case Schenk v. US, when the Supreme Court decided speech could be limited during wartime due to clear and present danger. During any other time besides one where we absolutely must support a war to succeed, I believe my liberties should not be given up. Some of Obama's amends to the Patriot Act in the USA Freedom Act seem reasonable, discontinuing the NSA from mass phone data collection. I understand they are trying to limit terrorism, but I don't think they have a right to be collecting this information randomly and without cause.
ReplyDeleteStop, question and frisk policies are also unacceptable. They say they only use these policies with reasonable suspicion, but often this is used alongside of racial profiling. They see someone who they deem as suspicious due to behavior or appearance, but they are actually just unintentionally profiling them based on past prejudice. I don't believe anyone should be subject to that since it is their constitutional right of life, liberty and property. Therefore Franklin was right in his statement that societies should not have to give up their rights for protection because it is already their right to have the liberties that they do.
I disagree with Franklin because his statement that societies in which the people give up their freedoms for securities loose both their freedom and security is false. Historically, loss in freedoms, either just or unjust, has not caused a loss in security, in fact for the most part it has increased national security. For example, after 9/11 the Patriot Act was passed, subsequently resulting in the loss of 4th amendment rights to be secure in our effects against unreasonable search and seizure. But the Patriot Act also resulted in an increase in national security by increasing the powers of the government. Also, Stop and Frisk Policy is most definitely are a loss of freedom but it is also an increase in security as well by providing the police officers an easier way to catch criminals.
ReplyDeleteBut I do agree with Sarah that both the Patriot Act and Stop and Frisk are unacceptable. In these scenarios, and all of the scenarios in which freedom has been freely given by the people in the name of security, we have given higher priority to our security. But in reality, how secure are we if we no longer have freedom? I think too much spotlight has been given to how much we need protection from terrorists, criminals, etc. But we as a people fail to realize that what we really need is protection from the government. John Locke's ideal government was on in which the people give up a limited amount of freedoms (not including life, liberty, or property) for a limited government that will protect our natural rights, and in the event that the government fails to protect our natural rights, rebellion is justified. So if we consider our current government, we not only give up the limited freedoms that Locke mentioned, but we also give up our liberty,we give up our property (eminent domain), and for what, our government constantly fails to protect these rights. So I think it is safe to say that our rights are not a priority in our government. Security has been ranked number one, but our government should place higher concern on protecting our rights, not security.
I somewhat agree with Ben Franklin. I think that in some cases, giving up some liberties is essential for gaining security. For example, in the airport you have to take off your shoes, go through a metal detector, etc., which may be inconvenient. This is giving up some of your liberties to be able to have a safe flight. But in other cases, it is not okay to give up your rights for security. For example, the Patriot Act. This is a violation of privacy without reasonable suspicion. The Patriot Act does not enhance security because it cannot focus on the real threat, since there is so much data to go through.
ReplyDeleteThe Patriot Act also involves the government putting lots of money into it, when it doesn't even fully reach the level of security it promises. Like I said before, it depends on the situation to determine whether rights should be given up in order to attain security. There is a very thin line between gaining security and that security becoming government control. I agree with Sarah in that Stop, Question, and Frisk policies are unacceptable. With this policy, people's rights are being limited and/or taken away. This would be a circumstance when it is not okay to give up your rights to gain "security". But in the end, the main point is that the goal is to have exceptional security with the least infringement on citizen's rights.
I agree with Franklin. I agree because there are policies that limit our freedoms in some circumstances that do give us security. For example, someone can’t run into a theatre and yell ‘fire’ if there isn’t a fire, because that creates clear and present danger, and Congress has the right to prevent that. Also, during wartime our speech is limited, otherwise our liberties should not be taken away from us. I don’t think that the government should be allowed to spy on us whenever they want due to the Patriot Act, even though they are attempting to limit terrorism, I feel like that violates the right to privacy in the 9th amendment. Also, it violates the 4th amendment because the government doesn’t have to tell the person about the searches.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah about the stop, question, and frisk policies being unacceptable. I believe that they are just being prejudice, due to past events. Police go up to people in the side of town that might have more crime rate than others, but not all the people who live there are criminals. This is an example of racial profiling, and is not okay. Police search someone who looks suspicious because something is in their back pocket, which could possibly be a wallet. People have the constitutional right of life, liberty, and property, and shouldn’t be taken away from them because of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I do not entirely agree with Franklin’s statement regarding the sacrifice of liberty for security. Although I do agree that security does come at the cost of certain constitutional liberties, I do not believe that the sacrifice of a small amount of freedoms results in the loss of security as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gemma that it is necessary for American citizens to yield certain liberties to the government in order to provide protection for the nation. I believe that Gemma’s example of airport security accurately represents such scenario. Before 9/11, airport security was meager and minimally invasive in terms of privacy. As a result of this apparent lack of security, terrorists were able to board and hijack the planes. Thus, the modifications and strengthening of TSA security were clearly necessary and critical changes.
Even though policies such as the Stop, Question, and Frisk policy and the Patriot Act violate the constitutional right to privacy of citizens, security is not lost in the process. The government may invade the private lives of individuals, but the general population still receives protection as a result. However, one group should not consistently be forced to sacrifice their rights for the protection of others. Instead of maintaining the current Patriot Act, provisions should be made that limit the government’s immediate access to private records. In recent years, proposals have been made to amend the Patriot Act so that government agencies are required to submit written request before being granted access to business records.
I think that personal liberties or civil liberties are very important, and for the most part I agree with Ben Franklin. Personally, I hold my constitutional rights in very high regard in that they should never be taken away from me, even in times of war. Now, I understand the purpose of the NSA, the Patriot act, and stop and frisk policies but that doesn't mean I agree with them.
ReplyDelete"The National Security Agency (NSA) is an intelligence organization of the United States government, responsible for global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes – a discipline known as signals intelligence."
I think we need to do everything we can to protect Americans from Jihadi terrorists and other groups alike. However, I'm not too fond of the idea of the NSA knowing what websites I go on and what text messages I send. While I have nothing to hide I expect a certain amount of privacy when I'm in the PRIVACY of my own home. It's like when your parents want to snoop on your phone. While you might have nothing to hide you still don't like the idea of them reading your texts. I think the NSA needs to have a legitimate reason to search through someone's call logs and text messages etc. Like when we were discussing compelling reasons and strict scrutiny, I feel that the NSA needs a compelling reason to look through my Internet history and messages. A compelling reason could be something like being a suspect in a terror investigation or having suspected ties to other terrorists.
The Patriot Act was designed to protect Americans from future terror attacks and I think the intention of it is great. However, the government goes about executing this goal in some ways that infringe upon our personal liberties. One example of this would be Title V of the Patriot Act, which basically says that the government can issue a gag order (preventing you from speaking about something) if you’re a suspect in an act of terror. Is that not a violation of my first amendment right to free speech? What if someone was being wrongly accused of an act of terror and they were prevented from speaking about it? How would they ever get justice for being accused of something they didn’t do? Another example would be how under the Patriot Act a suspect’s home can be searched without them even knowing about it and while they’re not even home. Isn’t that a violation of my fourth amendment right protecting against unlawful searches and seizures?
While it is extremely important that we do everything we can to combat terrorism and other national security threats that doesn’t mean just ignoring the Constitution and the rights it affords us, the American people.
I agree with Sara when she says, “I understand they are trying to limit terrorism, but I don't think they have a right to be collecting this information randomly and without cause.” I think that the government, as I said before, needs a compelling reason to search through someone’s cellphone data. I also agree with her about how stop and frisk policies seem to target certain races and justify it with reasonable suspicion. I don’t think someone should be stopped on the street and searched just because they look like a “thug” or “criminal” or are walking a certain way or even if they’re a certain race. However, if they match a description that a witness gives to a crime and the police are just doing their due diligence to apprehend the criminal then that’s a whole other story. But in general I feel that stop and frisk policies are infringing upon my constitutional rights.
http://www.cagle.com/2011/05/patriot-act-renewed/
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/36jj2g
http://www.ruwhim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/overly-attached-nsa-meme.jpg
I agree with Franklin that we as a society should not have to give up our rights of liberty to gain security. There have been many instances where the government has tried to restrict our rights as a nation to gain a false sense of security. With things such as the Stop, Question, Frisk Policy, the government thought they were making things safer, but instead it turned into a form of racial profiling based on past prejudices. I feel like this would be a violation of the fourth amendment, because they technically should have a warrant. Things like the Patriot Act also go against this. The government violates our privacy through spying on our lives; however, if someone was plotting a terrorist type of attack they may not find the information on it anyways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah that the Patriot Act though trying to prevent terrorism should not be able to randomly collect information without a reason. If they believe they have solid enough evidence, I think they should have to go through the proper procedures to obtain a warrant before invading everyone’s privacy. It goes against the people’s right to privacy.
I do not agree with Franklin for along the same lines as Alivia, in that historically when we have given up some of our liberties it hasn't ended in complete loss of all liberties and security, but I do think that giving up liberties in that past hasn't worked out completely in our favor. I believe that some protection provided by the government is necessary, and giving up some liberties is necessary for that protection. For example, with things like the Patriot Act, and airport security, I think that we as Americans loosing some of our rights under certain suspicion from the government or for the protection of the country is okay and often necessary. For the reason of the safety then granted to the citizens and the country as a whole. Also, these two policies and many more have not ended with complete loss of the liberties and protection even though they are not perfect.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that government can take the power granted to them too far and overcompensate based on the amount of liberties given up. For example with Stop and Frisk policies. All, the government has to have to take away a whole amendment right is this idea of “reasonable suspicion.” Although, these searches often end up not being reasonable at all, this is just one situation when I think that giving up our liberties has not worked out completely in our favor. Even though this is not a common occurrence I think that it is something that is completely unacceptable and should never happen. If we have to give up freedoms to the government then they should have enough respect not to abuse that power.
So, this means as of now I do not agree with Franklin but I do think that in the future we could possibly give up so much freedom to the point government will blow the power granted to them.
I mostly agree with Benjamin Franklin, but I must admit that there is one scenario when a fraction of our freedom should be sacrificed for our own safety. I agree with Gemma that it is necessary at airports to have extensive security checks for our own well-being, however, this is the only situation that I perceive the sacrifice of freedom as acceptable. The NSA, the Patriot Act, and stop and frisk policies are all serious violations of our constitutional rights. The NSA hasn’t come close to being a success, and virtually all of the data they collect is useless for the fight against terrorism. Also, the NSA and Patriot Act violate the right to privacy of American citizens that is provided by the 9th Amendment. The stop and frisk policies are in violation of the 14th amendment because the searches are not random and certain groups of people are treated unfairly. All three of these examples infringe on the rights of citizens with no significant benefits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jessica that our right to privacy should be protected. The rights of citizens characterize America. Without these rights being protected, how “free” would America actually be? I don’t see the point of the amendments that protect privacy if they are constantly being violated for almost no reason. Statistically, the NSA, Patriot Act, and stop and frisk policies do almost nothing to protect the citizens and are therefore irrelevant. There’s no reason to sacrifice freedom if the sacrifices make no impact and do nothing to protect the citizens.
I happen to disagree with Benjamin Franklin. In my opinion, the most efficient way for the government to keep the country safe is to take away some of the liberties that are given to the American citizens. And while that may seem threatening to other people, it’s necessary for the security of the nation. It is easy for one to say that national security is less important than civil liberties when there isn’t a current threat to the safety of the country, but as soon as a crisis occurs then people are quick to say that the government needs to do more to ensure safety of the public. For example, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the majority of American citizens felt that the government needed more policies to deal with national security. In a poll done by Pew Research in 2010, 47% of people said they were “more concerned that government policies ‘have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country’, while 32% said they were more concerned that “they have gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties.”
ReplyDeleteI do, however, agree with Alivia that the Patriot Act is unacceptable. While I believe that this policy was put into place with good intentions, it can do more harm than good. Citizens who have no criminal background and immigrants who are here legally are being targeted for searches without warrants, which is a violation of the 4th amendment. I believe that national security is an extremely important aspect of our country, but some things cross the line. In my opinion, TSA is necessary since the 9/11 attacks, and people should not complain about the procedures done before boarding a plane. However, there is no reason for TSA workers to be stereotypical and act any different towards groups of people who look a certain way. “Random” searches should truly be random and not used as a way to cover up the fact that they are targeting minorities through racial profiling. If random searches are used the way that they are intended, then no civil liberties should be violated and the security of the nation is still in the best interest.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/balancing-act-national-security-and-civil-liberties-in-post-911-era/
I do not agree with Benjamin Franklin’s opinion that “Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both.” I agree with the idea that in order to gain a little security we must give up a little liberty. As Gemma and Ashley mentioned, airport security is a prime example of this. While airport security may seem like a major inconvenience, and results in the loss of a little liberty, it provides us with security and can save lives. However, the amount of liberties that are lost should not outweigh the benefits of the security provided. For example, I believe that while airport security is a positive thing because it grants protection, when it starts to excessively infringe upon the rights of people and discriminates against certain groups it becomes a negative thing. This is seen as well in the “Stop, Question, and Frisk,” policies. I agree with Sarah and Alaynah that these policies are unacceptable because while the policies may provide some security, they are extremely discriminatory and often involve racial profiling. In my opinion, the security provided by “Stop, Question, and Frisk,” policies do not outweigh the liberties that they cost.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Franklin’s idea that societies that are willing to “give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserve neither and lose both.” For example, in the United States, there are a few laws that take away a liberty in exchange for security, but the people of the United States have not completely lost all security or all liberties and still deserve both protection and freedom. For instance, as Sarah mentioned, freedom of speech can be limited during war time as to protect national security. While this means that some liberty is lost, in my opinion the security that it provides justifies the “clear and present danger” clause.
I both agree and disagree with Benjamin Franklin’s statement. I disagree with him in that giving up liberty to gain security makes us lose both and makes us unworthy of both. The founding fathers built the country on the concept of social contract theory, and the ideas of John Locke in particular. His social contract theory said that people would give up some liberty in order to gain some protection. At the same time, he stated that some natural rights should be guaranteed (life, liberty, and property) and that people had the right to rebel when the government violated those rights. I would also argue that complete and pure liberty does not and will not exist so long as humans remain social creatures. We impose certain restrictions on each other unconsciously and in a lot of cases, it’s a good thing. (I think we can all agree that murder is bad and that people should not be free to murder as they please, which is something that could result from absolute freedom.)
ReplyDeleteI do agree that constitutional rights should not be infringed upon in order to gain security. The whole point of national security is to protect the ideologies that make us unique and a democratic country and using national security as an excuse to take away these rights defeats the purpose. I agree with Hannah that TSA security measures are necessary but stereotyping towards minorities and certain groups needs to stop (I do admit that I’m a little biased on this matter, though.:) ) I think the NSA, Patriot Act, and Stop, Question and Frisk policies were made with good intentions in mind (and fear probably played a good part in their creation) but have deteriorated into things that are not only ineffective but also borderline unconstitutional. The Patriot Act and the surveillance of the NSA do not take into account the requirement of compelling reason or probable cause that the Supreme Court deems necessary in these kinds of situations. Stop, Question, and Frisk policies have become something that propagate both racial profiling and classism.
I mostly agree with Franklin’s statement. Although giving up a small amount of liberty will not cause a complete loss of freedom, I believe Franklin is correct that giving up liberties is not the solution to gaining more security. Security does not come from giving up freedom. There will always be risk and danger, and protection cannot be guaranteed even if people give up some of their personal rights. For example, the stop, frisk, and question method of preventing crime in large cities is a way to limit people’s liberties, yet it does not necessarily ensure more security. This policy, as others have stated, has mainly consisted of stereotyping based on race, which is completely inappropriate and should not happen. The Patriot Act was created with good intention, however, it has limited the freedom of many people since being passed. Therefore, giving up liberties to gain security only limits people’s freedom even more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kundana’s argument that security comes from protecting the liberties granted in the Constitution. Everyone receives equal protection under the law, so a certain group should not have their rights infringed upon to gain security. It is not right for the actions of so few to define a group as a whole. So, while the Patriot Act and the stop, frisk, and question policy were meant to protect people, they have developed into ways to limit the liberties of people in an unjust manner. This is why I agree with Franklin that freedom should not be given up for security.
Ben Franklin is stating that giving up liberty for security is never a good thing and it will never work out for both parties. I believe that Ben Franklin was a very wise man but I don't completely agree with what he is saying. In certain circumstances giving up liberty for security has a positive effect for the citizen. I agree with Sarah in that Schnek vs Us decision is one case where giving up liberty for security has helped. I believe that if you are causing "clear and present " danger during war time you should be restricted from saying whatever you want to say for the safety of the country. But for the most part I agree with Ben Franklin, the NSA and the Patriot Act are examples of liberty being taken away for security and it being a disaster.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost everybody in the fact that the Patriot act had good intentions but has been a failure ultimately. When it was put into law in 2001 it was an impulse law because of the horrible attacks of 9/11. The patriot act has given too much power to the Goverment to spy on "suspected" terrorists. Stop and frisk policies are also flawed. I agree with kundana in the fact that stop and frisk policies are biased from racial profiling and classism. National security is needed but taking away liberty for it... More often than not is not worth it.
I do not completely agree with Franklin’s statement, but I also do not completely disagree with his statement. To a certain degree, liberties have to given up in order to have security, but liberates still need to be respected and not infringed upon. The founding fathers built the country on the idea that everyone has the right to the same liberties and a government should protect those liberties. But, this has been a debate has been going on for centuries, Rousseau believed that everyone is good and no liberties need to be given up to have peace; while Hobbes believed that in the Natural State of Man, everyone is evil and needs to give up all liberties to have peace. Locke though that everyone was mostly good but should give up some liberties to have some protection.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there have been instances where the security of people has not been equal and the people in power have used it against minorities by stereotyping them. I agree with Hannah and Alivia that the Patriot Act is unacceptable; there are people who have not done anything, yet they are being targeted by the Patriot act. I, also, agree with Kundana that the TSA, while being necessary and useful, can target minorities. Policies like the Patriot Act, NSA, and the Stop, Question, and Frisk act were created with good intentions and expected for more security for the liberties that were being tested; but, the policies are ineffective if the policies do not further the country or protect the country’s citizens.
I believe there’s some truth behind Ben Franklin’s statement. Hunter made the comment that as compensation for citizens giving up their freedoms, the government should not take advantage of their compliance. If this is the way the government worked, then Ben Franklin’s statement would not make any sense. However, it is the moment when the government takes advantage of the citizens where security is lost. How is it possible to feel safe in the hands of a government that doesn’t respect you? You have put in your part and they neglected theirs. This is where resentment forms and the rebellion rises. When the government puts policies in place like the Patriot Act and “Stop and Frisk”, people’s rights are violated for no ultimate gain, because ultimately, they won’t feel safe. While it may seem that the Patriot Act put in measures that infringe on personal liberties to keep citizens safe from terrorists, the citizens are now not safe from the government. This is where the loss of security comes from.
ReplyDeleteTake, for example, a child living in an abusive home. That family’s job is to protect and respect that child, so even if that family is providing shelter and food, how will that child feel a sense of security within that home? I think this is what Ben Franklin was getting at. The citizens are not only giving up their liberties but also given a false sense of security. I interpret the “security” part of Franklin’s statement in a broad sense. While it’s true that the government is protecting you against crime with the
“Stop and Frisk” and terrorism with the Patriot Act, you are giving up the security within your own government. In the end, all of this could be avoided if the government kept their end of the bargain and did things the right way. This would mean no racial profiling, discrimination, or blatant violation of personal rights.
Liberty v Security. There's a good Supreme Court case for you. And as Ben Franklin shows us, this debate has been going on for a long time. Even the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which the founding fathers used as a basis for their government, is divided on the issue. The problem is that both Security and Liberty are ideals that we support. Franklin is speaking about giving up freedom to a government, which I believe is an important distinction. When you give up liberty to a government, and in return gain security, its a double punch to your rights. Not only do you lose rights by giving up liberties, you give the government the power to take the ones you still have away. This is what, I believe, Ben Franklin is warning us about. Governmental constructs such as the NSA, stop and frisk, etc are huge violations of this principle. We must be careful, because as Orwell shows us, an oppressive government does much more harm than any terrorist.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Kundana, but partially on the subject of grammar. In modern America, we have confused the meaning of liberty to be the same as freedom, liberty means - "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." Notice how liberty is not warrant to act in any way we choose. We are free from oppression, but not from rules entirely. Freedom on the other hand means - "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." Complete freedom has no restrictions, the writer is free to write as he pleases and the serial killer is free to kill as he pleases. So Kundana is slightly confused. You can have perfect liberty, put perfect liberty is very different from perfect freedom.
Ugh you just dragged me, now I know how Jessica feels
DeleteI agree with Ben Franklin that any society willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both. We have the right to live with our civil liberties, but we also have a right to feel secure. There should be a perfect balance of liberty and security. We shouldn’t be forced to have to compromise or give up our rights in order to feel secure. How can you be secure knowing that you have given up some of your rights? You can’t because you know that your rights are guaranteed by the Amendments in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe Stop, Question and Frisk policies and the Patriot Act should not be allowed because they infringe upon the 4th and 9th Amendment rights. Those amendments guarantees our right against unreasonably searched and seizures without a warrant and our right to privacy. Someone walking alone the street should not be subject to a stop and frisk policy because they “fit a description”. The people who are usually stopped just fit a certain stereotype so they want to stop them. It isn’t fair to the individual who is being subject to this treatment because they have rights just like everyone else. This treatment doesn’t make them have security, it just makes them even more fearful. With laws such as the Patriot Act, we should not have to give up our privacy for security. I understand that the fear from terrorist attacks has caused us to feel we need to give up our rights, but we don’t. Often the powers from the Patriot Act are misused, so we aren’t sure if it is truly giving us security. The Patriot Act should be protecting us against potential terrorists, but most of the people who are feeling the effects of it are everyday people who are just trying to live life.
I agree with Sarah that polices like the Stop, Question, and Frisk policy are unacceptable. She said that ‘’They say they only use these policies with reasonable suspicion, but often this is used alongside of racial profiling.” I totally agree with her. A minority group should not be stereotyped, discriminated against or live their lives without feeling secure because there is ‘reasonably suspicion’ by the way they walk. Just because you walk a certain way doesn’t mean you’re a thug or just because you have a bulge in your pocket doesn’t mean you have a weapon. These policies should just end because more people are feeling insecure than secure and they are losing their rights. So I believe that when we are willing to give up our liberties for a little security, we don’t deserve and lose both.
I disagree with Benjamin Franklin. I believe that giving up a small amount of liberty for guaranteed security can be a good thing and is vital for a country to have, well, security. Not only for its citizens and people, but for matters of national security as well. As mentioned by several of my fellow students previously, air port security is a prime example of giving up small liberty for security. Airport security isn't meant to necessarily infringe upon the liberties of the nations people, but on the contrary it is meant to keep people safe.
ReplyDeleteI do think that there is a limit to the amount of liberties that should be able to be infringed upon in the matter of security. Policies like the Stop, Question, Frisk procedure used in New York City is crossing the metaphorical line. While I do believe that it could in fact ensure a higher level of safety and bolster the security of the city as a whole, the procedure of Stop and Frisk does not follow the steps of due process outlined by the constitution, on top of the intrusiveness of the procedure.
Another policy that concerns me is the Patriot Act, which allows the government to access any data from anyone in the United States that is being continuously stored. The fact that the government can just peer into a persons private life with no walls of boundaries is terrifying.
And the NSA, under the guise of National Security, being allowed to spy and snoop around however they please is outright crazy. At this point people are not giving up small liberty for small security, they are giving up all liberty for small security and that is unacceptable.
I mostly agree Franklin's statement but,there are some cases where you may have to give up some liberties for security. An example of that, like many people have said before, is airport security. In order to keep people and the country safe we give up some liberties when we go through airport security. In the case of airport security giving up liberties for security hasn't ended in the loss of freedom and has provided safety for the nation.
ReplyDeleteLike Kundana said though constitutional rights should not be infringed upon by the security measures the government puts in place. The stop, question and frisk procedure is something that infringes on people's constitutional rights and should not be used. This procedure violates people's fourth amendment right which protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. It's also based on racial profiling and prejudices and tends to target minorities. In cases like stop, question, and frisk it's doing more harm than good. I also agree with what Sarah said about the government not having the right to collect information without cause. I think if the government has suspicions about anyone they need a warrant to collect information on them they shouldn't just be able to listen in on all their phone calls.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is not usually worth giving up liberty to gain security, however I disagree with the statement that those who do deserve neither. I personally don't think that invasions of privacy or infringements on people's rights is acceptable, whether in time of war or not. I don't think that that is the way that they should be aiming to protect citizens. Privacy and certain rights are invaluable, and acts like the Patriot Act are harmful and infringe on people's privacy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while I do not support them, I do not think that those who do infringe on liberties to try to gain security don't deserve either. It is understandable that during times of duress a country will aim to protect both itself and its people in any way possible. In these situations, it may seem more reasonable to those passing these bills. It will appear that it is for the greater good, that in the long run it will be better. No clue if any society that does it will lose both.
I agree with Yurleidy that a lot of the issue comes from the fact that these actions often make it seem that the government does not trust or respect its citizens. When that situation occurs, it defeats the entire purpose of putting these laws into place to begin with. It ruins any trust, any semblance or privacy, and worsens the relationship with the people and the government. People will be less likely to take a stand for a country that does not even respect them or treat them properly.
I do not agree with Franklin’s statement. I think that today it is necessary to give up a little liberty in order to maintain security. With the technological advices in our world, I think it is impossible for citizens to personally protect themselves from major attacks by other countries. I believe that the federal government should focus more on protecting Americans from major terrorist threats and allow citizens to defend themselves in localized crime. This would mean granting citizens the right to keep private weapons for personal protection and focusing more on international threats. With the increased infringement on citizens’ rights I believe that Americans’ are gaining more security but sometimes the government violates the constitutional rights given to Americans too extremely.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ashley’s statement, the increased intrusion on citizens’ rights in airport security is justified to protect travelers from hijackers. She states that the previously meager security for plane travel was increased in order to accompany the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The rights that the TSA have encroached upon are minimal like comfort and ease. I believe giving up these small liberties is a fair trade for traveling safely to destinations by plane.
I disagree with Franklin’s statement because when the government infringes on Americans’ rights increased security normally results. However this does not mean that extreme security is a justifiable reason for the government to take away constitutional rights. With Stop and Frisk Policies, police officers use profiling to identify possible criminals. Stereotypes that local law enforcement use do take away certain groups liberties, which is wrong and discriminatory, but this results in increased security for the public, contradicting Franklin’s statement.
I agree with Alivia on the basis that giving up freedom doesn't result in a loss of security as well. To elaborate on Alivia's example of September 11, losing some of our freedoms increased our security and still does to this day. Before 9/11, you could show up to the air port an hour or so before your flight takes off and have plenty of time to check baggage, pass security, and board. Nowadays, as I'm sure you're all well aware, flights require exceptionally large amounts of time, and security checks themselves can take close to half an hour. With this example though, we are giving up our freedom to use our time more freely but our security while on the plane and even in the terminals is much increased as compared to pre 9/11. Stop, question, and frisk policies, however, are quite ludicrous and violate our rights much more so than airport security. These do little to increase our security and are used to racially stereotype citizens thus putting an undue burden on minorities and those "more likely to commit a crime."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ben Franklin's statement had some validity to it in the 1700s. However, this is 2015 and Ben didn't live in a world where thousands of radical Islamic terrorists want to wage jihad on America. So no, I do not agree with Ben Franklin and I believe that the United States must do whatever it can to combat terrorism. Before I really understood what things like the Patriot Act and the NSA were, and what a massive threat terrorism is in America I was against anything like the Patriot Act that infringed on the people's constitutional rights. But I think law abiding citizens need to take one for the team because the government reading your emails doesn’t hurt you directly. I find it rather selfish of someone to say that they don’t want the government reading peoples emails in order to protect them from people who want to wage jihad on America. Be proud your country fights the good fight and wants to protect you from these dangerous people. If you claim you have nothing to hide then what’s the big deal if the government is trying to protect you from an attack. We can’t live in an America that allows radical Islamic terrorists to set up terrorist cells, communicate with each other through email/ phone calls, and plot another terrorist attack on America just because you want to have privacy. If you ask me I’d rather have the peace of mind that I am safe and secure in a nation rather than restricting the NSA and the Patriot act and allowing a gateway for a terrorist attack on America soil again. The Patriot Act is about the only exception I have for basically infringing on people’s rights granted to them in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution (which is extremely outdated and needs to be modernized/ redone but that’s a discussion for another day).
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with the NYPD’s Stop, Question and Frisk policies. These policies are completely different than something like the Patriot Act. It's like comparing apples to oranges. These policies where a police officer can just pull some random person and question them or search is an over stepping of the government’s power. At this point the government isn't protecting its citizens, it's not trusting their citizens. I think we as Americans are too quick to use words like discrimination and racist. Just because a certain group or neighborhood is targeted doesn't mean that the police are necessarily discriminating. If the police in this case patrolled a certain neighborhood heavily because the neighborhood had a high crime rate and the majority of the population happened to be African Americans or Hispanics doesn't automatically make the cop racist or discriminatory. If the neighborhood has a high crime right then it should be patrolled heavily in order to insure safety. If by coincidence the majority of the people are African American or Hispanic that shouldn't make a difference. What are the cops supposed to do say "oh well, can't protect Americans in that neighborhood because that would be racist."
I disagree with Kundana when she says "I do agree that constitutional rights should not be infringed upon in order to gain security" The Americans that want protection by federal government from radical Islamic terrorist and also don't want their rights to be infringed on are living in a fantasy world. These terrorists will use our rights to their advantage and cause another terrorist attack on American soil.
Ben Franklin means that if a society gives up a little liberty to gain security, then they will lose both liberty and security. I disagree with this statement. I believe that for the government to do its job properly, including protecting our nation, we need to be willing to give up some of our liberties. We cannot expect our government to keep us safe without compromising and allowing them to take away some of our rights. However, that being said, the government does not (or should not) have the power to completely ignore all of our constitutional rights. Our rights are a part of what makes America so special and cannot simply be ignored. For example, the Patriot Act. This law violates our rights, specifically those in the fourth amendment. This act gives our government the power to search our cell phones, emails, bank accounts and internet usage. It basically turns average Americans into suspected terrorists. However, it did provide our country with more security, disproving Franklin’s theory. I do believe that the government had good intentions with this law but they took it too far. Perhaps a less invasive option would have been more appropriate and constitutional. I believe that a less invasive option of surveillance is somewhat necessary to keep our country safe. It would not take away many of our liberties but would still help our government provide security (I think this is perfectly possible).
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Jessica when she says that our constitutional rights should NEVER be taken from us. I think that the government needs to be able to take away some of our rights to protect us and provide security. We cannot expect for our government to keep us safe if we do not compromise with them.
I believe Benjamin Franklin was right about many of the civil liberties and securities. The Government should not be able to take away the base of the civil liberties, as outlined in the constitution. It is important for citizens to have the basic freedoms they are ensured via citizenship in the country, which was founded for the purpose of exercising these liberties. Obviously there can be limits, such as making the legal process to obtain a firearm more rigorous so as to prevent the mass shootings that result from mentally unstable people buying firearms, but there are degrees to which it is okay and not okay to be secure. For example, airports having metal detectors, x-rays, and other devices to detect bombs or firearms is okay. However, spying on the telecommunications of every citizen is one of the worst crimes our government has committed (not counting genocide and allowing slavery). We deserve our rights to no warrant-less searches, as outlined in the 4th amendment; and right to privacy, as outlined in the 9th amendment, and even if you believe you have "nothing to hide" and don't need as much privacy, others enjoy theirs and that should be respected.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Jake Powell on two points. First, the PATRIOT ACT (it's an acronym, "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.") and the NSA spying program PRISM and all of it's offshoots and similar programs are not okay. Secondly, his accusations of "radical Islamic Terrorists" are well off base. The NSA's spying program is flawed for many reasons, but the major one is this: it is wildly inaccurate in its detection system. The system works to find "terrorists," a demographic in the tens or hundreds, among 266 million+ internet users. The system designed to catch as many potential terrorists as it can flags millions of innocent citizens and, with no warrant, records all of their telecommunications. This is not okay. Secondly, Muslims in the United States should not have their liberties infringed, either, simply because Westerners do not understand the insanity that is the middle east. The "radical Islamic groups" that are so feared do not fight for Islam, but for power. These many factions use religion as a veil to hide the true purpose of these struggles and as a tool to install strict law on the people they control. Followers do not really know Islam, as they follow misinterpreted, mistranslated, shaky, and outright false teachings. This is evidenced by the fact that the Quran bans suicide in verses 6: 151, 17: 33, 2: 195, and 4: 29, meaning that suicide bombings are banned by Allah. ISIS, of of the only groups that truly fights for religion, does not know what they are doing. This is obvious they slaughter Muslims and Christians and blaspheme Allah in their very mission. Just because maniacs and psychopaths fight for power thousands of miles away in the most unstable region in the world does not mean Muslims in the United States should give up their liberties and rights
source on Quran: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islam/Islamic%20subjects/2004%20subjects/June/Committing%20Suicide%20Is%20Strictly%20Forbidden%20in%20Islam,%20Adil%20Salahi.htm
I agree with Ben Franklin. If we give up our liberties for security it could lead to unprecedented violations to privacy. Already the NSA collects files on many americans, thag include phone records. The NSA was allowed to collect information from phone calls such as number dialed, length of call, and the date of the call. President Obama over the summer signed a bill that made this practice illegal for the NSA to conduct without a warrant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jared that the Patriot Act had good intentions to keep the country safe, but it ended up violating the privacy of many americans by collecting call data.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jun/04/fact-checking-nsa-phone-records-program/