There are those who wish to be free and those that wish to be safe, and the two will never see eye to eye. Count me among the former.

^ I would add a third group, those who wish to be both free and safe. Those two ideals are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they quite often go hand in hand.

^I could not disagree more. If you want to be free, you must accept all the risks that come with it. It's right there in the star spangled banner "home of the free, land of the brave". You'll never be free if you expect to be kept safe.

But what is the point of extending freedom to an unnecessary extent? Take gun rights for example. Are you willing to provide criminals with ready access to fingerprint resistant firearms, and legally at a cheap price just so you can maintain your own freedom to defend yourself and not instead vest your security in a police unit?

All that is necessary here is sufficiently stringent auditing but preferably of course prior approval by the courts at least to an initially limited extent on the grounds of reasonable suspicion. It may very well be true that in this day and age the current system is too convoluted and needs revision. If done correctly there would be satisfactorily limited extension of executive power and a system of checks and balances.

I think the schmawy's argument is better stated by the, possibly apocryhal, quote from ben franklin:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

"Freedom" is a problematic word, as it has such broad connotations. Liberty on the other hand expresses much better the distinction which lies at the root of the problem, safety can not be bought by surrendering liberty, ever.

Redsky-

I think there are other threads that cover the second amendment issue of the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll keep out of those because a friend of mine labeled me a "black powder liberal" on that issue.

This is a fourth amendment issue which of course states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

If you'd wish to mix the two, applying FISA and Wiretapping to gun control, you'd get something like the following scenario: The government having the right to enter EVERYONES home, without your knowledge and without court permission, to search for firearms. Would this be acceptable to you?

Another Olbertwit idiocy...

Not to be bitchy, but you quoted Ben Franklin... just saying.

I was actually just making an analogy suggesting that extending freedom overtly can have negative consequences, it is not simply an unquestionably affirmative virtue that is beyond criticism. Responding to your comparison though they are completely different issues, one relates to the level of privacy you are entitled to and the other to the ownership of a lethal tool. Additionally I admit that the constitution was a profoundly forward looking document for the most part but referencing it as an end statement can't substitute for using logic and applying policy dilemmas to pertinent and irresolute modern day situations.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Not to be bitchy, but you quoted Ben Franklin... just saying.


That quote cannot be reliably attributed to BF.

Torture, wiretapping and spying on Americans SAVE LIVES, want proof? Can't have it. Its a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. The equivalent of telling your physics professor you did your eassy but its contents are so radical, that grading it might create rifts in the space time manifold.

Here's a simple historical view:

No illegal wiretapping, spying or torture during the Cold war when the US faced possible nuclear warfare under the mutually assured destruction doctrine with communist USSR, possible massive armoured engagement along the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, fought a cladestine war with the KGB. Somehow mangaged to retain moral and legal dignity when it came to its own citizens (besides McCarthyism).

Wiretapping, prolonged detainment, torture fighting a 'created' war against a tactic of warfare called terrorism riding on fears post terrorist attacks on 9/11, declared war on and invaded two nations with little credibile evidence, lied about WMDs to invade another. Is less secure then it was on 9/11, with no interest in actively capturing or pursuing the leaders of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Is attempting to spy on its own citizens while dismantling civil liberities for Americans, attempting to create a total police state.

Makes sense? You decide.

The Constitution like Democracy can lead to some messy situations and im not saying that as a negative knock against either, im all for them. The alternative is to take the "easy" and "simple" route of just installing a dictator. I agree with schmawy that absolute freedom and absolute safety can never be, you must at least sacrifice a little of one for the other. I like schmawy would choose freedom over safety any day. In terms of Redsky's comment privacy and ownership can be the exact same thing and aren't always totally different issues because if my ownership of something comes into question then my privacy will ultimately be violated. I'm not getting into the gun control thing cause that is a huge can of worms with unlimited variables, circumstances, and such but all of this comes from it being impossible to decide on a universal definition of "freedom". Am I free to rape a 14 year old? Or kill someone just for pleasure? I could but luckily I dont want too but their are others out there who do so hypothetically you SHOULDN'T have EITHER absolute freedom or safety but a mix of the two because humans can not be trust with either. Unless you can guarantee an internal human good that will always propel us to do the right thing it will never work. Doesnt mean take either away, its not so black and white, just means we have to continue to strive for the personal responsibility in handling both.

Farhad: "...(besides McCarthyism)" That's a big exception. Although it's worth noting that the US actually was rife with Soviet moles. Yet to your point, it didn't destroy us, and civil liberties were left more-or-less intact.

You all realize that this thread is being mointerred by the NSA, right? Get used to that feeling. George Bush smells bicycle seats! See ya in Cuba...

Audio's distorted. Better copy out there?

"If you want to be free, you must accept all the risks that come with it."

There was nothing in my comment that suggested I didn't feel there wasn't risks, or that freedom or security aren't worth fighting for. I said that the ideals of freedom and security go hand in hand. We should never trade one for the other, blindly assuming that there must be some equation between the two.

Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc. Now, imagine what this does to the collective identity of the United States. Are we safer? Look at other countries in history who have had similar controls of freedom. People are enslaved in such societies, not safer. Armies can be made to fight in totalitarian societies, but they are coerced through fear or other heavy handed manipulation.

Societies without freedom lose something truly great, self determination. Their armies join and assemble voluntarily and their police forces are community minded and less corrupt. Societies with freedom have more honor, more transparency, more self respect and more will power.

I am not a hardcore nationalist, but I think that freedom and personal liberties are assets to the U.S. fabric, and I believe in a strong and rational military to be used for defense.

1984. They're behind schedule, but they're working on it!

I agree with you, and think both you and I have the nation's best interest at heart. I do love America, but I just don't feel as proud, or as free, as I once did. I really can't name any freedoms or liberties that I've lost, It's just a feeling that I have. And it's the fear that I could some day lose them. Legislation like the Patriot Act and HR 1955 and Executive Order 51 really make me want to put my tinfoil hat back on. All this legislation is intended to keep us "safe", yet between the lines of each seems written the powers to oppress and subdue us. You come across as thoughtful, rational, and patriotic. If it were up to you, I'd feel a lot more comfortable, but unless you're a senator all you and I can do is vote.

>> ^LeadingZero:

Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc...

I think America is heading a very dangerous path for very stupid reasons.
I think the war of terror been portrait to the citizen of the world is not so much the islamic as it is our own governments. Just check a few facts. Count how many things have the Islamic terrorist have taken from us; (laws, possessions and citizens lives, etc), then count how many our government have taken from us (wars in the name of terror do count for lives taken by our government). Then you decide who the real terrorist are.

lol. Well said schmawy. I appreciate your thoughtful and reasoned observations and opinions as well.

And you are correct that beyond voting there isn't much I can do. I write the occasional letter to my representatives, go to the occasional protest, donate here and there, collect signatures for political candidates, and other such minor political activity, but that's all tiny drops in a very deep ocean. And for what it's worth I haven't been interrogated by the thought police even once. Maybe that's just another decade or two down the road, or maybe I need to go fold up a tin foil hat myself.

At any rate, I will continue to be politically active, arguing for both civil liberties and a strong yet rational military. And I'm always glad to see that there are folks such as yourself who are not sleepwalking. Complacency might be the biggest obstacle we face as a society.

^ re-LeadingZero
"Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc."

As we transition from Democracy to Corporatocracy, the pieces are already in place - computer cookies, google earth, NSA. Just got to get over the legalities...face it, Orwell IS here.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned CCTV. Some big brothers are bigger than others.

Out of curiosity, how's the gov't work in Kuwait? That'd make a good blog entry, nudge nudge.

>> ^Farhad2000:
No illegal wiretapping, spying or torture during the Cold war when the US faced possible nuclear warfare...

your naivety knows no bounds

Ok some good points raised...

But again i'm forced to ask why news in america has to be hyped and dramatised to the n'th degree? Why must he go on such a rant, asking rhetorical questions, using sarcasm, trying to sway people with his incredulous tone?

Is presenting the actual stone-set facts in an unbiased presentation not good enough for their viewers? Do viewers really need to have an opinion dictated to them?

Right now, people have to decide which politician is telling the truth. Will people have to decide, as well, which NEWS PROGRAM is telling the truth? Because when you start giving your opinions, you stop giving plain ol' facts. Imagine the difference between "Bush has spent 5 billion dollars on war." vs. "Bush has spent 5 billion dollars ON WAR!?!?!?!?". One's a fact, the other's telling you what to think. That's what politicians try to do, not news.

Saying things in a certain tone, with a certain inflection, and throwing insults at the person you're 'speaking' to is giving an opinion.

People can say what they like about the BBC, but i think their delivery of news is perfect - which is no less than it should be. People here are arguing about freedom and liberty when the 'incorruptible' organisation that is supposed to present the truth to the people is force feeding their opinions to you. Free people need to have an organisation without an agenda whose job it is to show you facts and the truth!

DISCLAIMER - whether what he said is right or wrong is not the point.

In my mind Olberman is a pundit, an "editorializer", I don't think of his presentation as news. Can't vouch for what other people think, nowadays.