Do we want to be unsafe and have civil liberties or...

[Virginia Dare]

do we want to be unsafe and have no civil liberties? Because that is the choice that we as Americans are facing right now.

Neither George Bush nor any other politician is going to ever be able to guarantee our safety, no matter how much power and authority we give them over our lives. When will we realize that? When is this ugly period of history going to end?

I am reminded of an absolutely brilliant movie that came out about 20 years ago called "Brazil". If you've never seen it, I highly recommend it. That is the sort of Orwellian world I picture us living in not too far down the road.

There is one particular scene that has always stayed with me. It is set in a very busy restaurant during the lunch hour when a bomb goes off. The population is so used to terrorist attacks that they just sit there and continue eating their lunches while a crew comes in and cleans up the broken glass and body parts. That is where we are headed.

During the last three election cycles I've thought this is it, if something doesn't change now we're screwed, but this time I really think that if the Democrats don't take either the House or the Senate, or possibly both, we're really really up shit creek without a paddle.

Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?

[tocqueville]

1. civil liberties make you safest

you fell in trap that Bush is rigging for you.

If you have civil liberties you can freely discuss how to protect yourself from internal and external agression, thus find the best solutions.

Without civil liberties you have a dictator which is the unsafest thing that can happen to you.

[RonHack]

2. I agree that the question is baited.....

....even government agents (CIA, FBI, etc.) and security experts believe that security can be strengthened in this country, WITHOUT compromising any of our Constituional rights.

First, we get an Administration that takes these threats SERIOUSLY.

George Bush & Co. must be KICKED OUT. Hell, I'll see them HANG for treason for this!

[Virginia Dare]

4. I guess my point was...

safety is a relative and abstract thing, and can never be guaranteed.

George Bush seems to be implying that by giving up more of our civil liberties, and giving him more control and authority over our lives that he can make us "safe". He uses the clever term "we are safer but not yet safe".

I'm just hoping that most Americans can see through those empty words.

[RonHack]

9. I just remember these immortal words:

"Those who would surrender a little liberty for security, deserve neither liberty nor security"

- Ben Franklin

Not sure if his quote is exact, but the point is made.

[nosillies]

3. This upcoming Discovery Channel program looks fascinating

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14601485/

Ted Koppel is hosting a documentary and town hall meeting on this very topic. He was discussing it on the Today show this morning, and he seemed left-leaning on this topic -- regardless, I'm just glad that we're having more national discourse on this very important issue.

I might get flamed by people because I'm supposed to boycotting Discovery or hating Ted Koppel or I'm evil for having cable or something, but just thought I might throw it out there!

[Virginia Dare]

5. Discovery Channel..

is one of the few channels most consistently worth watching imo, and I like Ted Koppel, thanks for the heads up.

[Imagevision]

6. When Bush leaves office americans need never to fear to be attacked again!

And if Kerry wasn't defrauded being the president? 9-11 never could have happened!

[warrens]

7. The safest place in the world is probably

In solitary confinement in a max security prison. I point that out to Repukes and ask them if they REALLY want to be safe at all costs. I get looks, let me tell you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Ye olde Franklin quote.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

- Benjamin Franklin

That's been repeated off an on in the last five years. Often times it comes in different forms, but it always says the same thing. Ironic, then, that people get the "lose both" part but never really focus on the "deserve neither" part.

And that's a serious omission. That's Franklin dropping the bomb. He's saying that people who remove liberty don't DESERVE security. So to put it another way, Franklin said...

"People who support this PATRIOT act, Abu Ghraib, racial profiling shit deserve to get their asses blown up by Al Qaeda."

Franklin always was my favorite.

[Jacobin]

10. False dichotomy

You can have both.

But nothing is foolproof and our foreign policy blunders have made powerful enemies who will attempt to retaliate.

[Virginia Dare]

12. Disagree..

no politician can "guarantee" our safety. There will always be hazards, both natural and man-made, we will never, ever be 100% safe.

[dogday]

11. Nobody can guarantee 100% protection

nobody can, so unless they can, give me back my liberties... that simple...

[porphyrian]

13. That's a false binary. Those aren't our only options.

"Security" is a lie we tell ourselves so that we can sleep at night. Liberty is a right that thousands, if not millions, died for us to have today. They aren't on separate ends of a spectrum, they really aren't related at all. That's the lie we're told by those who want to take our liberties and control our behavior.

[H2O Man]

14. Correct.

The "choices" in the OP are only two points on the graph. We do not need to think in the limited terms that VP Cheney tells us defines reality.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. "There is no safety in the cosmos." - Alan Watts

One can fret about tornadoes, terrorists, earthquakes, stray asteroids, or some moron driving with a cell phone in one hand and a beer in the other. The Grim Reaper's going to come calling no matter what.

As for losing Civil Liberties, most people, the vast majority, wouldn't miss them if they lost them because they never use them.