Liberty vs Safety at the Repub Debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUB4_R71vwE

One of the first questions asked to the Republican candidates in the Nov debates was about the patriot act, and whether or not those powers should be expanded. (youtube link, the question gets asked at 04:36, and the candidates answer in turn after that.)

I was mortified that most of the candidates on the stage (who are supposed to be about LIMITING government power) agreed that basic liberties should be tossed out the window in order to aid the fight against terrorism. Even Gingrich (who I usually agree with) said that there was a difference between crime, and terrorism, and therefore the gov't should basically be given blanket authority to do whatever they want to as long as it is under the auspices of fighting terrorism.

I have huge issues with this. I'm all about whuppin' the tar out of the Al-Queda and tearing down the Taliban's meat-house, but this really bothers me. First step toward a police state IMO. In the age of terrorism the gov't certainly has a responsibility to protect its people, and they need the tools to do that. I get it. That being said, however:

Cops should still need warrants. People should still have the right to a fair and speedy trial. People should not be able to be detained indefinately without charges filed. People should still be allowed to have an advocate/lawyer present when being interrogated by the police.

This just really bugs me, and aside from Ron Paul (who I don't think would be a very good president) nobody else seems to remember what the heck the American constitution is all about....

Comments are welcome, I'd like to know what everyone else thinks. I'm trying to get some perspective on this mess.

I'm Newt Gingrich, my father spent 27 years in the infantry -

Sccccccrrrrr - stop right there.... I don't care about what you're father did when it comes to choosing the next president. Sorry bro.

Bachman, My father- brother- whatever served- I don't care what you're family did when it comes to choosing the next president.



Ron Paul is the only one that gets the constitution and what it means. We cannot make exception to liberty. We cannot compromise in the name of 'terrorism.' The biggest threat to liberty is no al quada, it's those clowns on stage masquerading around as public servants.

All I heard in that debate was "Lets take a huge dump all over the constitution and throw all natural rights out the window." There's only one man on that stage who didn't say that.

I mean once we allow exception to the bill of rights (which has already been done) who gets to define what suspected terrorism is?

Schlitz said:

...who gets to define what suspected terrorism is?

Click to expand...

Your children.
Your neighbors.
Your family members.

An accusation will define who is a suspected terrorist. "If you aren't a terrorist you won't be accused. So what are you worried about?"

The first ones accused by the government? Teachers, Doctors, Journalists, Artists, Writers, Scientists...

I foresee int he future gun ownership meeting the definition of suspicious. OH WELL SINCE HE IS A SUSPECTED 'TERRORIST' not 'CRIMINAL' WE CAN WAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND DO WHATEVER WE WANT. What's sad is that people eat this stuff all up, hell I used to before my eyes were opened.

Schlitz said:

I foresee int he future gun ownership meeting the definition of suspicious. OH WELL SINCE HE IS A SUSPECTED 'TERRORIST' not 'CRIMINAL' WE CAN WAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND DO WHATEVER WE WANT. What's sad is that people eat this stuff all up, hell I used to before my eyes were opened.

Click to expand...

^^^this!

Plus, it wasn't that long ago that Napolitano decided that military veterans, and anyone who supported a 3rd party candidate were on the list of suspected or likely terrorists. I definately DO NOT want to give the government any loophole to circumvent our legal system or due process, otherwise they can cook anyone they want and simply put it under the umbrella of 'terrorism'.

I'm sure you guys remember how veterens and constitution supporters were classified as "right-wing extremest", and possible "domestic terrorists", by the Department of Homeland Security:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Yep.

So now comes the problem:

I don't want another term with the current President.

At the same time I don't want the republicans to get powerful enough to enlarge the government AGAIN and undermine our basic liberties in one sweeping move in the name of fighting terrorism (which eliminates everyone but Ron Paul from the mix)

and yet I can't vote for Ron Paul because his of his foriegn policies...

So now I have no one left to vote for....

Didn't King George play the native americans against the settlers in order to tax the settlers more?

SourKraut said:

Didn't King George play the native americans against the settlers in order to tax the settlers more?

Click to expand...

I know he formed a military alliance with them to try and put down the colonists, but I don't remember reading anything about using them to tax the settlers.

Tea, paper, postage, and liquor I remember being taxed

I don't recall an 'Indian' tax (to use the lingo of the day)

frommycolddeadhands said:

and yet I can't vote for Ron Paul because his of his foriegn policies...

So now I have no one left to vote for....

Click to expand...

Maybe it's time to try a more humble foreign policy. No one can genuinely argue that our current one has worked worth a crap. In the very least it's time for a constitutional foreign policy of declared wars.

Liberty vs Safety

Liberty vs safety? Y'all understand that the question is deliberately framed with a false premise, right?

It is not liberty vs safety. Liberty is safety.

Our legal ancestors in England and colonial America spent nearly 720 years pursuing safety from government! Safety against being seized in the dead of night on a monarch or nobleman's whim. Safety from being dispossed of property capriciously. Safety from being imprisoned, hanged, beheaded, and taxed into poverty by the powerful, the rapacious, the ambitious.

The rights that are synonymous with Liberty are Safety!

Brass Magnet said:

Maybe it's time to try a more humble foreign policy. No one can genuinely argue that our current one has worked worth a crap. In the very least it's time for a constitutional foreign policy of declared wars.

Click to expand...

What policy IS working?

Our esteemed elected employees will soon have an approval rating that matches the +/- of the polls.

Might as well just get it over with and officially vote one corporation into the White House.

Citizen said:

Liberty vs safety? Y'all understand that the question is deliberately framed with a false premise, right?

It is not liberty vs safety. Liberty is safety.

Our legal ancestors in England and colonial America spent nearly 720 years pursuing safety from government! Safety against being seized in the dead of night on a monarch or nobleman's whim. Safety from being dispossed of property capriciously. Safety from being imprisoned, hanged, beheaded, and taxed into poverty by the powerful, the rapacious, the ambitious.

The rights that are synonymous with Liberty are Safety!

Click to expand...

Damn. Your post was way better than mine.

HandyHamlet said:

What policy IS working?

Our esteemed elected employees will soon have an approval rating that matches the +/- of the polls.

Might as well just get it over with and officially vote one corporation into the White House.

Click to expand...

I vote for Wal Mart.

At least with their low prices gasoline might drop a few dimes.

And they've got enough fencing to finally secure that border.

And they are pro 2A

And with their winning business model we might actually fix our economy...

Why hadn't we thought of this before?

New Video Segment--Freedom Watch, Andrew Napolitano

HandyHamlet said:

Damn. Your post was way better than mine.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Directly on point, here is a very recent clip of Andrew Napolitano:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX41SkKN0tQ


This is a very powerful video. I highly recommend it. Highly.

frommycolddeadhands said:

and yet I can't vote for Ron Paul because his of his foriegn policies...

Click to expand...

I think you say this because you're deeply misinformed about his stance on foreign policy which isn't a surprise given the mainstream media propaganda constantly feeding misinformation. What you have to realize however is that nothing would change under his presidency except he would stop behaving as if the president was king and and he would have the people through the congress carry the responsibility of going to war as it's suppose to be if you want to follow the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution.

That doesn't mean a possible threat wouldn't be dealt with! It just means Ron would not make the decision to take action unless under the circumstances described in the rule of law. But outside of those circumstances he would go to the congress, and if they declared war you can be damn sure he'd wage it, win it and get it over with quick.

Here's a good video of him explaining it in his own words how he would address a potential threat:

[video=youtube;ATmUE8TCmjE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATmUE8TCmjE[/video]


How can anyone rational and reasonable conservative not be satisfied with this position?