What Price Civil Liberties?

B

Bruzilla

Guest
Revolutionary War  - 4,435
War of 1812  - 2,260
Mexican War - 13,283
Civil War: Union -    359,528
Spanish-American War  - 2,446
World War I  - 116,708
World War II  - 407,316
Korean War - 33,651
Vietnam War - 58,168
Gulf War - 293

Total - 998,088

To date, 998,088 Americans have been killed in the defense of our way of life.  Now, because of the deaths of less than 4,000, many people in our country seem to think it's okay to now change our way of life, delete our freedoms, and suspend many of our liberties in the name of public safety?  I ask... if we allow this to happen, what exactly did these 998,088 men and women die for?  If terrorists were to develop and deploy a nuclear bomb that killed 100,000 people, it would still be barely over 10 percent of the casualties that we've experienced maintaining our freedoms.  I don't mean to belittle the significance of those who died on 9/11, but in the overall scheme of life in America, their deaths should not result in the loss of American rights.

All this talk of national ID cards, surveillance cameras, phone taps, etc., that I see being proposed, just really offends me.  Have Americans really become the weak-knee, hand-wringing, all-I-care-about-is-my-ass people that so many of our enemies throughout history have alledged us to be?  If were willing to sell out our personal freedoms, that so many have fought and died to maintain, then I guess I have to agree with the bad guys.  We have become that kind of country.

I understand the desire to feel safe and secure in our homes, but how much should we be willing to pay for that security?  Once we surrender rights and freedoms it is very difficult to get them back as someone will always be willing to provide an explanation as to why it is critical that they not be returned.  I think Americans should all think twice before showing any support for anti-terrorism/security bills.
 

James D

Member
I agree to a point.  But let me first say, that after each of these wars, the US did change.  Sometimes more then others.
I do not like the red light cameras in Waldorf.  I think the only purpose they serve is to raise money for the Sheriff.  I do not think they make driving any better or safer.
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
I agree, I'm very leary of the "Big Brother" type programs that are quickly being implemented.  I'd rather they put their efforts towards putting the folks in this country who are not Americans under the microscope until we can be absolutely certain of their background and intent, rather than issuing us all National ID cards and filming our every move.  I have yet to figure out how National ID card will be able to protect us from anything.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Sorry James, but red light cameras are a very far cry from what is being proposed in the state of Maryland and across the US.  The US is one of the least secure nations in the world because we are one of the most open nations.  I don't want to see us lose our openess because of terrorists.  The terrorists may have killed 4,000 people, but it is Americans who are doing the real damage.  

Terrorism is defined as the use of terror to cause others to change their behaviors.  No terrorist group is strong enough to do that in the US, but a bunch of cowardly folks here in the US could get it done.
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Bru--
There is a HUGE difference between being cowardly and being cautious. Agreed that there are some aspects of our lives that are in question now that our freedoms have been taken advantage of.  And, agreed, that giving in on all accounts will be, in a way, giving more power to those terrorist acts than need be. But the way I see things, this whole tragedy has exposed some SERIOUS flaws in our system (ie the way we gather intel, our imigration system, security etc.) and those changes are FINE to occur as I would say they go to protect our freedoms more. We should be free to fly without fear. But to get that, we need harsher screening at our airports. We should be free to go to a public place w/o fear of being attacked with Bio-warfare. But we may need to have some monitoring devices installed in subways, malls, monuments etc. And we should be free to interact with and accept immigrants and visitors from foreign lands into our cities, business, schools, and homes without being afraid that they pose a danger to us or our loved ones. So people will have to be screened harder and watched more closely when they come into this country. I see this as PROTECTING our freedoms; not "losing them" to terrorists.
Also, as one last point, I don't agree with your bringing war casualties into this and comparing them to the 4,000 lost on sept. 11th. Enlisted or drafted soldiers were aware of the risks that carried. They were on the front lines of a war. As such, they operated under different rules and had different expectations. You can't equate them with 4,000 citizens going to work unaware of not only their fate, but even the risk they were taking. 4,000 may be small when compared to hundreds of thousands but its apples and oranges.  Not to belittle the huge loss of military life in war, but as you say, in war some things are to be expected. But the majority of citizens in this country were not at "war" with anyone on the morning of Sept. 11th...or at least they didn't know they were....
 

foxylady

Member
Have you had the chance to read this article in the Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12099-2002Mar24.html
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
Good points Jimmy, but exactly how do you achieve goals such as more security and making public places safer?  The truth is that you can't.  Absolutely anything and everything that you can do to prevent attacks can be countered by someone who is intent on making one.  We in the US are used to dealing with criminals who's primary interest is in themselves.  If the risks are too high, they look for someplace or someone else to victimize.  Terrorists, especially religious zealots, don't worry about escape plans as they usually don't intend to escape.  When you patch one hole in the system they just find another, and you can never patch all the holes unless you completely strip Americans of their rights.

Let's look at airport security since 9/11 as an example.  Let's forget for now that an attack like this is a one-shot deal and stands about a zero percent chance of being sucessful again.  We immediately go overboard and start siezing anything that could be a weapon from anybody.  We arrest a pilot for not going through the metal detectors and saying "what difference does it make if I had a weapon?  I'm the pilot... I don't need a weapon to get into the cockpit."  

Next, we have all the mid-level media types trying to make news by smuggling weapons past security folks.  While very, very few Middle Eastern men are terrorists, almost all Islamic terrorists are Middle Eastern men, so those are the guys we should be focusing on.  Instead the screeners have to worry that the Soccer mom approaching the detector got $50 from a newspaper reporter to try to sneak a nail file past the them, or is an inspector for the FAA.  Next come the screams of racial profiling, which we respond to, and now there is a reluctance on the part of screeners to scrutinize Middle Eastern men.

So now we have delays, paranoid screeners, and the folks most likely to be a bad guy stand a good chance of being given a pass.  And all this to prevent a recurrence of an attack that has about zero percent chance of happening again.  Hell, the 9/11 attackers couldn't even get the last plane on target once the passengers caught on to what was going on.  And every would-be hijacker or airborne miscreant since 9/11 has been brought down by fellow passengers not security forces.  

I don't see Americans as military or civiliams.  Being in uniform does not make any American expendable, and a price should be paid for any American life taken wrongfully, be he Butch O'Hare or Danny Pearl.  The point is that all those Americans died because they did not want to see Americans or others lose their freedoms.   We sent our people off to foreign shores to die rather than risk losing what we have here.  Now it seems that there are a lot of people who feel that it is better to lock ourselves away than to go out and destroy those who threaten us.  "Tis better to curse the darkness than to light a candle" if you will.

As Americans we should be able to cross boundries without identification, travel without harassment, and conduct our business without undue government incursions.  If someone is too afraid for their own skin to go out and travel or visit places under these conditions, fine.  They can stay home with their head under the blankets and wait for the folks who had the guts to wear a uniform to go fight their battles for them.  But don't pass laws that cut into the rights of Americans just so your butt will feel safe.

All these laws that are being considered offer Americans is a very, very, false sense of security.  Any terrorist worth his or her salt will find a way around every new law that I have seen, and the people who get screwed in the end are everyday John and Jane Does across America.

(Edited by Bruzilla at 9:34 am on Mar. 26, 2002)
 
Top