Where's the line between civil liberties and safety. - Page 3

Where's the line between civil liberties and safety.

This is a discussion on Where's the line between civil liberties and safety. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by loboleather If "enhanced interrogation techniques" will provide information that makes a single American man, woman, or child even a little bit safer, ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: Where's the line between civil liberties and safety.

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array Sig35seven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by loboleather View Post
    If "enhanced interrogation techniques" will provide information that makes a single American man, woman, or child even a little bit safer, I have only one thing to say: Red is positive, black is negative.
    Don't beat around the bush...lets call it what it is...TORTURE.
    "Confidence is food for the wise man but liquor for the fool"


  2. #32
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Some people need to go back and read some of the things that went on back then.

    Remember, we were the "revolutionaries" -- both in the fact of opposition to the “established authority” and in our tactics. OTOH, the Brits carried out the official actions of the established "government" against the insurgence – many actions that we repudiated and denounced when we adopted the Bill of Rights.

    In those days, the "accepted" manner of warfare was the style of European soldiers lined shoulder to shoulder and fighting in the open.

    Our militia inflicted heavy casualties firing from concealed positions (often on column of troop and "non combatant” support -- using quote "ambush"). We then retreated to a fire from a new a new position -- w/o "standing and fighting". The nature of these “non-uniformed” / “semi-uniformed” militias using this particular style of "ambush" warfare that favored the American terrain was considered as repugnant and as terroristic in those days as the tactics we deplore today.

    Just as we complain, today, that the current “war” is not a “war between countries”, our revolution was not a war between countries – we were not yet a recognized country.

    FWIIW, the earlier “French-Indian” war employed the same sort of hit and run attack and even more repugnant / terroristic slaughter of non-combatants.

    As for the “Government’s” action used against us, Franklin and the rest of the “Founding Fathers” were well aware of the abuses against humanity exercised by the Brits (and "Loyalist") against those they claimed were their “subjects” – note not “citizens” but “subjects.” In the Brit's minds our "uncivilized" actions justified their retaliatory reactions under the force of authority, for the safety of the "State."

    It is to the “Founding Fathers” credit that (once we won our independence) these “Founding Fathers” repudiated such actions as Brits had been using against us, as abuses again humanity -- rather than adopt the practices of the “established countries’ of Europe.

    IMHO – in a way, Ben Franklin and the rest of the Founding Fathers did have to deal with the likes of Al Queda (e.g. religiously motivated forces) – in that the “Divine Right of Kings” with its political and religious doctrine of royal absolutism had not yet been fully repudiated by the established countries of Europe. True, the “Glorious Revolution” in England had transferred some of this religious doctrine of “Divine Right” from the King to the gentry, there. However, the doctrine of absolutism still implied that any attempt to depose the “established authority” or to restrict their powers runs contrary to the will of God and constituted heresy – hence a theocratic base of authority motivated those against whom our “Founding Fathers” lead us in rebellion.

    It wasn’t until after the American and French revolutions of the late eighteenth century that this theocratic base of authority of the “appointed few” was weakened and the theory lost its appeal in the west. It wasn’t until the early twentieth century it had been virtually abandoned by all western society.

    So, yes our Founding Fathers did deal with the agents of one of the superpowers of their time and they did have to deal with terroristic act based on theocratic justification – remember that many historians consider the War of 1812 as the “Revolutionary War Part 2.”

    So, albeit Founding Fathers had lived through and were still dealing with murdering scum from a foreign country, we know that our Founding Fathers repudiated having government agents eavesdropping on every conversation, on “Star Chamber justice”, on forcing one to give evidence against one self and on many other acts still at that time commonly accepted by the governments of the rest of the “civilized world” – because Founding Fathers adopted the Bill of Rights, while fully aware of danger that we were in as a fledgling country.

    They chose to live free in the face of very real danger – to themselves as individuals and to us as a country.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array shockwave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,051
    And George Washington was exceedingly firm on the matter of our not mistreating our captives.

    Traditionally, since the days of our founding as a nation, we have not been known to be a nation of vicious, brutal torturing scum. I really don't like this awful development and hope we find our moral strength again.
    "It may seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first."

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    And George Washington was exceedingly firm on the matter of our not mistreating our captives.

    Traditionally, since the days of our founding as a nation, we have not been known to be a nation of vicious, brutal torturing scum. I really don't like this awful development and hope we find our moral strength again.
    + 1

    Well put.
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  5. #35
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    DaveH, thank you.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Montana - Public Safety v. Private Safety
    By DOGOFWAR01 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 15th, 2009, 05:34 PM
  2. Civil Liability In PA?
    By jcheinaman in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 4th, 2008, 03:32 PM
  3. Civil war
    By Pro2A in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: February 15th, 2008, 10:05 AM
  4. S&W 1911 grip safety/FP safety problems?
    By sheepdog in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: December 8th, 2007, 01:24 PM

Search tags for this page

where do we draw the line between civil liberties and security

Click on a term to search for related topics.