Rights, Freedoms and Safety in today's United States

[Lisnpuppy]

The Boston Marathon Bombings has once again brought into sharp focus a few issues. These being how safe can we make ourselves in the U.S? What rights should be maintained, even for the people charged of such a crime? Lastly, what freedoms should all people have and are we willing to give up rights and freedoms (for ourselves and for others) in order to ensure the safety of the general populace?

 

Before I weigh in on the subject I am interested in hearing from some of you.

 

Please keep this conversation civil. Don't try to turn it into a debate on any one political issue.

[DrakeTheDragon]

Can't speak for anybody in the U.S., and I'm not really into a discussion right now either, but it might be interesting to know that since this incident in Boston even here in Germany they are discussing more public security cameras in our bigger cities in politics. Somehow they're convinced the terrorists could only be found so quickly afterwards because of the many cameras everywhere in Boston, and now they're discussing if we should follow suit. Privacy advocates here of course are on the barricades now. Might be interesting to watch the development. Regardless, the thought of giving up more rights and freedom (privacy) in exchange for more safety and security seems to be a big one as well over here even. The more incidents, the more people think of it, no matter their nationality.

[Lisnpuppy]

Drake: That is interesting to know. One never knows how something like this impacts other nations. It would also be interesting to know how other countries view how the U.S. handles this...(ie if the authorities do not issue Miranda Rights, for example, would other nations frown upon this?)

 

And just an FYI even if you don't live in the States please chime in anyway. I put it in relation as the incident happened in the States and I live there. It is not limited in any regard for replies as long as they are relevant.

[rizon72]

Personally I think there is a limit to how much 'safety' a government can provide. Even with total control I don't see a population being safe, only controlled.

[HeyYou]

Those that would give up liberty, for the illusion of safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety.

 

How could the government have prevented this? From my point of view, they couldn't. No legislation is going to be able to stop these kinds of incidents, probably not even reduce them. Granted, this isn't something that happens often here in the states..... My reasoning here: Anybody and their cousin can build a home-made bomb, from materials readily available at any department store. Improvised explosive are incredibly easy to make, and it is impossible to simply remove the ingredients from the market. Even laundry detergent can be mixed into a rather effective explosive....... If someone wants to build a bomb, you simply cannot stop them.

 

More security cameras won't stop them either. Of course, it would hopefully make them easier to catch. But then, the police are a REACTION force. They don't prevent crime, they just clean up the mess afterwards.

 

Banning various weapons/large capacity magazines/etc. aren't going to make a significant difference either. Nor will background checks. It has already been shown that background checks have zero effect on violent crime. Not to mention that violent crime has been on a downward trend for a couple decades now, even though in many areas, gun laws are becoming looser.

 

In my view, the government simply cannot effectively prevent these types of incidents, therefore, passing laws, giving up liberties, in order to 'feel' safer, is pretty much useless.

[Lisnpuppy]

I am not only talking about these things, but also not giving people their Miranda Rights. I am discussing how we investigate and handle crime (ie..illegal search and seizure, due process, etc) racial profiling....this kind of thing also.

 

Will we be prosecuting the person accuse of the Boston Marathon bombing and subsequent violence under provisions given under the Patriot Act with some say seriously limits person rights? Under these anti-terrorist laws people can be detained without arrest, without being charged...they do not have a right to remain silent, they do not have a right to an attorney.

 

Remember...regardless of what we know (or think we know) about this incident, this 19 year old person is a naturalized American Citizen.

[HeyYou]

Just because he is an american citizen, does not preclude him being a terrorist.

 

I never did agree with the 'patriot' act. If anything, I feel even the name is an oxymoron. How is it patriotic giving up rights?

 

In any event...... he is an american citizen, arrested in america, for a crime committed in america. ALL of his rights should be upheld. Distasteful as it is for me to say that, to do otherwise, would put the lie to our 'land of the free' statement.

[Lisnpuppy]

I didn't say it precluded him from being a terrorist. However if you read any number of comments most people don't realize he is in fact, an American Citizen and not just some person in the country on a green card, illegally or whatever. I point it out however as these taking of rights is just as applicable to those here one way or another as to every American Citizen.

 

I personally believe the "Patriot Act" name was very carefully chosen.

 

And now I will weigh in.

 

Every person in this country should be afforded the same rights under the law when faced with the handling, investigation and prosecution of any crime. To not extend these rights, as you say, makes a lie of our "public face" (if you will) that we give the world. That of upholders of freedom and rights to all.

 

To afford this person (and all like him) these rights also makes us more transparent. It keeps others in this country and others from saying, "See here...you treated him unfairly...how do we know that this isn't some conspiracy..." And it may be distasteful, but it is completely necessary to do so.

 

I believe that this country can be made very much safer if we want to give up our rights and civil liberties. I do not wish to do this. Though certain rights have been given very small reaching and limited restrictions, by in large the Supreme Court has been very careful in restricting these things. This is as it should be. As we all know what seems like a perfectly reasonable thing can turn into the slippery down spiral to discrimination and a loss of rights.

 

People forget, even our Founding Father John Adams supported the rights of all under the law. After the Boston Massacre and a time when the Colonist were scared and demanding the death and lynching of the involved British Army Members...demanding they need no trial. He stood at their defense as their attorney and defended them in trial. He later said in his journals that this was one of the most important things he had ever done.

 

edit: typos

[HeyYou]

I find myself in agreement with most of your points, except..... that the government can make us safer. :) Short of turning the US into a police state, with surveilance equipment in every room, we will never be completely safe. Giving up freedoms in the hope of some mythical promise of "increased safety" is a bad joke. Of late, it seems that our government ISN'T IN the problem solving business. They just like to poke around at the periphery, and treat symptoms of a larger ill. Gun Contrl debate is a prime example of such behavior. Quite frankly, I don't believe our government has been working in the interests of it citizens for a couple decades now. Why on god's little green acre would I trust them now?

[Lisnpuppy]

That is kind of my implication. That government can make us safe...and increasingly safe the more they go toward a police state. Take away freedoms, bust into whatever home you want, don't let people speak their minds...

 

So yeah competent or not...it could happen if you do it this way. I wouldn't want to live even remotely close to this.

 

Government is broken and until the American people get their collective heads out of their butts it won't change. But that is another debate. :P

 

As for the gun control. I don't even want to talk about that one in this thread (though I see what you are trying to say) as I do not want this to go in that direction.