Quote:
Originally posted by Melcheor:
I don't know, by giving up our human rights in persuit of justice for terrorism, aren't we just compromising the very ideals the terrorists want to destroy themselves?
(Edit - needed a question mark)
|
I agree with the point you're making, but when our openness and freedoms give them unrestricted access to doing us harm...
It's a problem I've spent alot of time thinking about, and still have no answer. IIRC it was Timber that had a rather well known Ben Franklin quote in his sig line (which I'm probably butchering), "Those who give up essential liberty for temprary security deserve neither liberty nor security" How does that jive with monitoring potentially dangerous groups to ensure the safety of the nation. In this there is no easy answer and any compromise must be made with the knowledge that there really isn't a "right" answer, in world war 1 German immigrants to the states were put into internment camps and watched, in WW2, Japanese in america were put through the same treatment, and many went to great lengths to prove their loyalty and served admirably in the European theater, both of those events went against the ideals of the founding fathers, and in retrospect seeing the efforts those groups went to in order to prove loyalty to the state they weren't necessary. (at the time they were viewed as such for instance several japanese immigrants unknowlingly provided intelligence that would prove incredibly useful to the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor). With the current groups that are the source of terrorist attacks we've seen nothing but posturing and complaints of victimization from the public fronts (CAIR, MBC, CAIR Canada, etc), and very little real effort from individuals within those communities. So does that put those groups in suspicion and make them deserving of the treatment we gave to other groups we warred against 60-90 years ago? I wish I had an answer, but all I get is more questions when I ask myself about topics like this.