"What's more important, security of our nation, or human rights?"

This is one of the questions asked to the candidates of the Democratic debate, and hearing the answers really disturbed me.

Most of the candidates said, pure and simple, that security is the most important thing. EVEN over human rights. To me, it sounds like the terrorists have almost won by ridding us of our rights and civil liberties. Now with the House passing the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (www.abovetopsecret.com...) I'm afraid things are going to only get worse, especially with a president who approves such things.

If I haven't made it clear yet, I'm a strong advocate of Human rights and the Constitution (check out my sig to get a good picture of what I think of this overdone security).

Where do people here on ATS stand in this matter?




[edit on 11/21/2007 by bigbert81]

This is what they wanted. They don't care about human rights. They don't care about the people they are supposed to protect. They just care about getting more and more control.

reply to post by dingleberry77


I agree, what a way to take control by over-selling the terrorist threat.

It's also so sad that our candidates think security is our top priority, despite what our country's foundation was built upon.

The people who are in the pro-security camp often say things like, "what good are your rights if we're all dead?". But, they never seem to point out the opposite side of that coin: What good is security if we have no rights? I'll take rights over security any day of the week.

It's not a choice of one vs. the other.

If human rights aren't violated, security follows.

And make sure you don't exclude some humans while including others, because that would make you a hypocrite.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by dionysius9]

reply to post by dionysius9


It SHOULDN'T be one vs. the other, but it's seeming to be more and more the case nowadays.

Our rights ARE being violated BECAUSE of security.

I saw this too and was appalled. Now, in both parties, we have people who prefer security over freedom. This is mainly due to the fact that it is not THEIR freedoms they are taking away but the American peoples'.

That debate was a joke. Of the people on stage it is strange that the best and most experienced people are all in the bottom tier.

Hey, waterboarding is cool! It instills terror in the terrorist and they tell you everything you want to know! It is just so confusing now/ the lines the boarders.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Yes, I fear that these people will just do things that LOOK good, but aren't really, like Hillary Clinton's health care plan. What do you do if 30% (don't know the actual number) of Americans are uninsured, FORCE them to get insured, then EVERYBODY will be, whether they can afford it or not.

I'm afraid this is the type of logic we're up against, forcing people to do things for the sake of security.

It was also pretty dang annoying that, at least on the channel I was watching it on, almost everytime Obama was speaking, they would cut to commercial, literally mid sentence.

Huh, what the heck?

The Constitution, and Governments ONLY job is to protect our rights as human beings, The Constitution ensures our rights, The Government is supposed to protect the Constitution which in turn protects our rights....

With that said, if we loose our rights in the name of protection or security, what exactly is Government protecting?

Originally posted by bigbert81


Where do people here on ATS stand in this matter?

Patrick Henry was right. Liberty is more important than security, because life is worthless without liberty.

Originally posted by bigbert81
It was also pretty dang annoying that, at least on the channel I was watching it on, almost everytime Obama was speaking, they would cut to commercial, literally mid sentence.

Huh, what the heck?

"Left wing media bias".

Har har!

Originally posted by dionysius9

It's not a choice of one vs. the other.

If human rights aren't violated, security follows.

And make sure you don't exclude some humans while including others, because that would make you a hypocrite.

Agreed, with the caveat that you can't exclude some while including others. Either all have rights or none do. What the gov can do to one they can do to any, even if they have chosen not to do it to you yet.

Originally posted by bigbert81
Our rights ARE being violated BECAUSE of security.

I disagree. Our rights are being violated because of a quest for power and control. Security is only the excuse. Tyrants provide their own excuses.

reply to post by resistor

Originally posted by bigbert81
Our rights ARE being violated BECAUSE of security.

I disagree. Our rights are being violated because of a quest for power and control. Security is only the excuse. Tyrants provide their own excuses.

Fair enough, let's just say that it's in the NAME of security.

A good cover that seems to be working thus far.

Originally posted by dionysius9

It's not a choice of one vs. the other.

If human rights aren't violated, security follows.

And make sure you don't exclude some humans while including others, because that would make you a hypocrite.

Well said. I'd add that not only would that exclusion make you a hypocrite, it results in much suffering and problems for all peoples over time.

reply to post by lifestudent


I fail to see how it's NOT a choice of one vs. another. Look at the rights we've lost in the name of security. I don't understand how it not being one or the other is even possible with what has happened thus far.

"Those who would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both."


- Benjamin Franklin


[edit on 23-11-2007 by dionysius9]

I think the point is that we are giving up rights, but it isn't making us more secure. The statement points out the folley.