[POLL]Our civil liberties are being curbed in the name of counter-terrorism

[Hazir]

I took the idea about this poll and topic after I tried to answer questions of https://www.politicalcompass.org

It made me think of whether we really going nowhere with the new harsh anti-terrorist policies.

Or it was always like that, after all our liberties were curbed before - in the name of keeping the environment clean, preserving our health, national security or political correctness etc.

We are living in the electronic age. The perfect time for Big Brother. Official surveillance easier than ever now.

Are you scared that everyone is being monitored, despite them being bad guys or not?

[1715161268]

1715161268

[1715161268]

1715161268

[1715161268]

1715161268

[1715161268]

1715161268

[PeterTheGrape]

I took the idea about this poll and topic after I tried to answer questions of https://www.politicalcompass.org

It made me think of whether we really going nowhere with the new harsh anti-terrorist policies.

Or it was always like that, after all our liberties were curbed before - in the name of keeping the environment clean, preserving our health, national security or political correctness etc.

We are living in the electronic age. The perfect time for Big Brother. Official surveillance easier than ever now.

Are you scared that everyone is being monitored, despite them being bad guys or not?

Environment and health are different.

With regard to national security type views of "terrorists", there are two views.

1) Some people see those people as a separate type of person that must be controlled or killed.

2) Some people see those people as sort of predecessors of a civilized person.

The irony is that the people who go overboard on security are actually more a danger to free society than 'terrorists'.

Before the current nonsense about terrorism, countries used to isolate tribal peoples and prevent them from being brought into issues that are beyond them. Now though the focus is on seeking them out and killing them, rather than isolating them until they civilize. The next step would be to go out and kill wild animals near cities. Then, start killing all wild animals. Then back to people again, some other group to target, etc. It is a sickness, not a security.

[Zz]

Unlimited freedom is not a good thing.
Freedoms should be restricted, for security.
States should be able to take all kinds of precautions in their coverage area.
Citizens should also allow it.

[RJX]

Are you scared that everyone is being monitored, despite them being bad guys or not?

Not scared but infuriated about surveillance and have been for a while. a cannon is used to shoot at shitflies, everything else that perishes in the proces is written off as atrition of modern society.

i dont like   

[canine2017]

Unlimited freedom is not a good thing.
Freedoms should be restricted, for security.
States should be able to take all kinds of precautions in their coverage area.
Citizens should also allow it.

Not so terrible restriction of freedom by the state as something that can benefit this right policy. I don't trust them. all they care about is their own interests. Remember how many times already raised the question about restriction of the right to arms.

[Mometaskers]

Unlimited freedom is not a good thing.
Freedoms should be restricted, for security.
States should be able to take all kinds of precautions in their coverage area.
Citizens should also allow it.

If I want to be monitored 24/7, then I would just enter the Big Brother house. I understand the appeal that these measures are needed for security but then can we really trust the government? Would they always have their citizens best interest in mind?


I don't live in the US so I'd assume the government here is less capable of thorough surveillance but there are lines that must not be crossed. There must be processed to be followed. Just as laws are made to curb certain human tendencies there are also rules placed to prevent the government from stepping on people's rights. Why do you think there are checks and balances in the government? Because, just like individuals, they'd be nasty and brutish if left to do as they please.

[Lancusters]

Unlimited freedom is not a good thing.
Freedoms should be restricted, for security.
States should be able to take all kinds of precautions in their coverage area.
Citizens should also allow it.

If I want to be monitored 24/7, then I would just enter the Big Brother house. I understand the appeal that these measures are needed for security but then can we really trust the government? Would they always have their citizens best interest in mind?


I don't live in the US so I'd assume the government here is less capable of thorough surveillance but there are lines that must not be crossed. There must be processed to be followed. Just as laws are made to curb certain human tendencies there are also rules placed to prevent the government from stepping on people's rights. Why do you think there are checks and balances in the government? Because, just like individuals, they'd be nasty and brutish if left to do as they please.

But I do think that no matter what direction my life will get the government. The main thing for me is that while the extracted information is used only for security purposes.and the extracted data were not used for any other purpose. And of course the security of the country must be guaranteed.

[GreenBits]

Unlimited freedom is not a good thing.
Freedoms should be restricted, for security.
States should be able to take all kinds of precautions in their coverage area.
Citizens should also allow it.

Not so terrible restriction of freedom by the state as something that can benefit this right policy. I don't trust them. all they care about is their own interests. Remember how many times already raised the question about restriction of the right to arms.

Some of this. Methinks the fear of Islam (I'm sorry, 'radical Islamic terrorists) is being used by the GOP to push for more restrictions on civil liberties. This is also to curb dissent against what is known for hand as a 'disruptive policy'. Notice how we have seen a lot of legislation lately criminalizing protesting lately, or enhanced searches due to 'increasing border security'. Funny how we didn't need all this shit just a month ago..

Draining the swamp!

[JavaLove]

I believe the libertarian stance on this matter. That is that we should have protection from terrorism and the ability to remain a sovereign nation without the government taking stances against its own citizens.

To be clear -- forms of government spying seem like a good idea in order to prevent crimes, and they have prevented many crimes, however the immorality of what they've done is questionable. Why would the US government not announce their intentions on spying on their own civilians? They could have said they're monitoring the air waves for potential terrorists. But they didn't. Instead they lied about it for years until Edward Snowden exposed them. That's taking action against their own citizens.

Therefore, in order to prevent new terrorists, we should be funding our police officers and developing tough immigration policies. Instead, however, we have been imprisoning people for their freedom of speech. The government should keep us safe but it can only do so in an open and transparent way where the people have the last word.

[PeterTheGrape]

I believe the libertarian stance on this matter. That is that we should have protection from terrorism and the ability to remain a sovereign nation without the government taking stances against its own citizens.

To be clear -- forms of government spying seem like a good idea in order to prevent crimes, and they have prevented many crimes, however the immorality of what they've done is questionable. Why would the US government not announce their intentions on spying on their own civilians? They could have said they're monitoring the air waves for potential terrorists. But they didn't. Instead they lied about it for years until Edward Snowden exposed them. That's taking action against their own citizens.

Therefore, in order to prevent new terrorists, we should be funding our police officers and developing tough immigration policies. Instead, however, we have been imprisoning people for their freedom of speech. The government should keep us safe but it can only do so in an open and transparent way where the people have the last word.

lol you totally do not get libertarianism.

A person grows when they have space, including liberty / psychological space. That is the central point of libertarians.

A libertine is quite different, a person who wants 'liberty' as a license to do whatever they want.

Once you start talking about controlling other people you are defending libertinism not libertarianism. A real libertarian does not respect any intrusion on another's space that is preplanned, premeditated. Also a real libertarian would not refer to anybody as "terrorist" except to make conversation with libertines who see terrorists everywhere, i.e., who try to project the negative into their future to have a more pleasant present.

'Preventing terrorists by funding police' is truly funny. The lack of people who laugh at it is sad.

[trollercoaster]

Terrorism is a meme, attacks are blown up in the media in order to force invasive laws down our throats, which are really about tracking and confiscating wealth, they will eliminate cash in the name of fighting terrorism.

[HabBear]

So you're talking about US civil liberties? (This is a global forum and majority of Members or likely not from the US.)

Many American's believe that protecting against foreign invaders is the first priority of the Federal government. These people would be wrong.

The first paragraph of the US Constitution states: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's the establishment of justice that is listed first as the reason the United States was created, followed by insuring domestic tranquility, and finally to provide a common defense.

Most of the intrusive monitoring of the government is too fulfill the "common defense", not the establishment of justices or insuring domestic tranquility. Although the latter could be argued to be achieved through counter-terrorism. Our Legislators and voting public should pay more attention to what our Constitution establishes as "the way".

[squatz1]

See I think this is one of those issues in which it is wildly tough to draw a line between where the government is crossing the line in protecting you and where they're just trying to make sure everyone is safe. Thinking of it along the lines of "would I rather have saftey or unlimited freedom" is something that I think should be able to help you.

I don't agree with the surveillance of Americans by the American government, but in the name of making sure the country is more secure and making us safer against attacks from citizens within the country I'd have to agree with the surveillance as a whole.

Unlimited freedom is not a good thing.
Freedoms should be restricted, for security.
States should be able to take all kinds of precautions in their coverage area.
Citizens should also allow it.

Still, you must be able to agree that their should be a fine line drawn between security and really just pushing the line on getting information on people.

[JavaLove]

I believe the libertarian stance on this matter. That is that we should have protection from terrorism and the ability to remain a sovereign nation without the government taking stances against its own citizens.

To be clear -- forms of government spying seem like a good idea in order to prevent crimes, and they have prevented many crimes, however the immorality of what they've done is questionable. Why would the US government not announce their intentions on spying on their own civilians? They could have said they're monitoring the air waves for potential terrorists. But they didn't. Instead they lied about it for years until Edward Snowden exposed them. That's taking action against their own citizens.

Therefore, in order to prevent new terrorists, we should be funding our police officers and developing tough immigration policies. Instead, however, we have been imprisoning people for their freedom of speech. The government should keep us safe but it can only do so in an open and transparent way where the people have the last word.

lol you totally do not get libertarianism.

A person grows when they have space, including liberty / psychological space. That is the central point of libertarians.

A libertine is quite different, a person who wants 'liberty' as a license to do whatever they want.

Once you start talking about controlling other people you are defending libertinism not libertarianism. A real libertarian does not respect any intrusion on another's space that is preplanned, premeditated. Also a real libertarian would not refer to anybody as "terrorist" except to make conversation with libertines who see terrorists everywhere, i.e., who try to project the negative into their future to have a more pleasant present.

'Preventing terrorists by funding police' is truly funny. The lack of people who laugh at it is sad.

Your definition / central points of libertarianism is exactly how I described it earlier. You claim that it is when all individuals are given liberty and space to grow. This could be applied in many circumstances. As I described, in a libertarian society, there is MINIMAL government. This does not mean that no government exists. It just means that the government is there to protect the SOVEREIGNTY of such state. This society can only guarantee liberty of action and thought - not any success whatsoever.

This is documented through academically checked papers and libertarian party platforms. If there is no government whatsoever as you seem to believe then there is no libertarianism. Strange how that works, huh?

So, in order to protect the state's sovereignty, the libertarian government must apply all forces it has. This means, its sole tool, the military. I described earlier that I advocate for a government that is completely transparent with its actions and one that does not spy on its citizens without further discretion. I also advocate for strong borders that screens all entries and exists from the country, aswell as the necessary military operations to counter deadly organizations at home and abroad.

These are needed for any individuals in a libertarian society to have their freedom.

You act as if libertarianism is complete anarchy. It's not. Libertarians fight for the protection of the country while claiming their rights.

Before you throw snarky comments at people, check your facts.

[Sithara007]

Ever since the 9/11, the government and the law enforcement agencies have been using terrorist attacks as an excuse to spy on the ordinary citizens. I am not against surveillance as such. But it must be limited to those who are suspected of committing terror acts, and before the surveillance is started, permission must be obtained from the courts.

[Sundark]

Civil liberties are becoming thing of the past, especially after the signing of the USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act citizens of the US lost large part of their civil rights.
What else you can explain that these acts restrict the rights of Americans given by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments?
At this point I am convinced that the government is threatening the civil liberties this war war on terrorism is attempting to protect.

[popcorn1]

It's more like the elite want to watch the poor in case they attack them..

But the elite don't like the poor watching them    because we find out what they do to the poor   .

And this is why today   JAMES COMEY is talking to congress..
To stop the poor from snitching on the ELITE..

Now if they find a snitch they throw them in jail   .BUT the perp gets off with more money in his or her bank account ..

Now remember when a WHISTLE BLOWER snitches on his own government .
The government are doing something wrong to it's own people..

Like imagine your boss you find he as been robbing government money ..
And the second in command says it's top secret shhhh don't say anything..

Why cannot a person snitch on him or her..? They are thieves .
Now if they are under investigation then yes i can see why they keep a secret .
But what if no investigation is even taking place..

Doesn't the employer who works for the public have a duty to warn the public..

Well that's what a whistle blower is ..

A SNITCH FOR YOUR OWN PEOPLE ..A HERO  ..

Now if you think it's wrong then why should the public help the police in a crime..
They are whistle blowers..

They are helping the public to combat a crime..

[Maximilian_333]

Ever since the 9/11, the government and the law enforcement agencies have been using terrorist attacks as an excuse to spy on the ordinary citizens. I am not against surveillance as such. But it must be limited to those who are suspected of committing terror acts, and before the surveillance is started, permission must be obtained from the courts.

Before suspect the man you need to have proof, but how to get them if not surveillance? I think that first you need to follow. Another thing that produced evidence thus can only be used to combat terrorism.

[popcorn1]

used to combat terrorism. ..Terrorism reminds me of this story below .

You will see how common it is ...
Firefighter turned ARSONIST in bizarre bid to save station threatened ...
www.mirror.co.uk › News › UK News › Fire & Rescue Service
25 Jul 2014 - A firefighter turned arsonist in a bid to save his fire station from being closed. ... Guilty: Naughton had been a firefighter for seven years but has since ... Kate Middleton shows off her super-toned arms at British Embassy in Paris .... son asked her what's for dinner before committing suicide shares heartbreak.


Firefighters who start fires: a look at the phenomenon of 'firefighter ...
3 May 2016 - As an example, the report mentions a firefighter in North Carolina who would set fire to an occupied house, then return to the scene and rescue the family inside. Last weekend, a volunteer firefighter in Mayerthorpe was charged with 18 counts of arson following a recent rash of fires in the area northwest of Edmonton.

Indiana firefighter charged with arson after allegedly starting fires ...
fox59.com/.../indiana-firefighter-charged-with-arson-after-allegedly-starting-fires-bec...
18 Oct 2016 - LAWRENCE COUNTY, Ind. – A firefighter with the Perry Township Fire Department in Lawrence County is being charged with arson after ...

John Leonard Orr (born April 26, 1949) is an American former fire captain and arson ... open and populated. He would set small fires often in the grassy hills, in order to draw firefighters, leaving fires set in more congested areas unattended.

German fireman admits in court to setting fire to refugee house | News ...
www.dw.com/en/german-fireman-admits-in-court-to-setting-fire-to.../a-19296140
31 May 2016 - A fire safety officer and his friend have confessed in court to starting a fire in a house where several refugees were sleeping. The men have ...


BBC NEWS | UK | England | Firefighter jailed for arson
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2733225.stm
6 Feb 2003 - A Devon retained firefighter who started a fire in a market so he could earn ... Mr Mooney said Baker committed the offence, an act of "rank ...

What leads firefighters to commit arson? - WMUR.com
www.wmur.com/article/what-leads-firefighters-to-commit-arson/5118278
1 Jul 2016 - In this story, News 9 looks into what leads firefighters to arson. We have a correction to an earlier version of this story: Lance Lalumiere, who .....

[popcorn1]

Terrorism is a meme, attacks are blown up in the media in order to force invasive laws down our throats, which are really about tracking and confiscating wealth, they will eliminate cash in the name of fighting terrorism.

tracking and confiscating wealth..FROM THE POOR..YOU DOUGHNUT  HITLER DUDE..

Lets not tax the elite 700 million from a billion pounds profit   lets tax the poor guy 120 pounds out of his
400 pounds wages..

No But he still got 300 million to live off a year..Arr well he provides the jobs..
No but we supply as a country the roads and the people to sell too  ..

NO BUT HE GIVES ME 5 MILLION A YEAR TO TAX YOU     the 400 pound rich dudes I.E THE TRAMPS

trollercoaster  I HOPE YOU END UP POOR ..

[PeterTheGrape]

...

Most of the intrusive monitoring of the government is too fulfill the "common defense", not ...

The main idea of a lot of opponents of things like surveillance is that "common defense" is actually a projection of the insecurities of some people. In the 1950s you can look at McCarthyism that swept the nation. When there is heavy emotion attached to an issue that is a sure sign that it is not being viewed accurately.

With regard to this issue of monitoring to prevent "security threats", a good historical example is the normal past treatment of what are now called terrorists. Throughout history tempered leaders have not attacked "smaller minded" people, they have let them develop. But when the smaller minded people get power they insist on using technology i.e., guns, surveillance etc to "contain the threat".

Pakistan used to keep its tribal area apart from the world, let those people develop at their own healthy pace. Then some silly numbskull got the idea to go in there and force them to play war games with monkeys from other countries. Now the weapons sellers own the narrative.

... I also advocate for strong borders that screens all entries and exists from the country, aswell as the necessary military operations to counter deadly organizations at home and abroad.

These are needed for any individuals in a libertarian society to have their freedom....

Sorry that my tone was snarky. I don't agree with your definition of libertarianism, but I know many libertarians would side with you.

What exactly is the value that your libertarian army would be defending?