Ben Franklin said, "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security." Agree?

AmEN, BROTHER!

Say it again, loud and often. I'll be d~mned if I'll let a bunch of terrorists--or cowards who are my so-called neighbors--frighten me into surrenderinng the rights and liberties our forefathers (including my own father) died to secure for us.

Actually, you should explain your statements on the two laws, since you've expressed your opinion, "doing some work and finding out for oneself" that is, research, wouldn't necessarily "jive" with your opinions. The responsibility in civil debate rests on the speaker of an opinion to rationally justify it.

By the by, in WW2 we were under martial law and committed innocent (japanese) citizens to concentration camps. I think you are a casualty of simple thinking in this respect. I think far more concerning than these two laws are the general atmosphere of the times that is characterized by a lack of engagement, discourse, and intellectual activity. I am disgusted by the popularity of a certain type of vain and self-serving christianity, fundamentalism, the dominance of party politics, and the control of special interests over the entire political system. These laws are not the cause of any curtailing of liberties, but only the symptoms of a more dire illness threatening the life of our open and free society.

I would have to agree with Ben Franklin's quote. Personally, I have no problems trading my liberties for security as long as we provide "checks and balances". If they are watching me, then who is watching them?

Personally, I was very disappointed how the President signed the bi-partisan Patriot Act into law stating he has the tools to find terrorists where ever they may hide, only to break his own law a month later by allowing the NSA to bypass FISA court system and wiretap American citizens without a warrant.

Right now about the only people who appear to be losing any liberties are the "enemy combatants" at Gitmo. And one could argue whether they're entitled to the same rights as U.S. citizens.

I understand your concerns , but inadequate security could very well lead to another attack on American soil on the level of 9-11 or worst. Security measures should conform with the Constitution. However, the U.S. Constitution is a not a suicide pact;it allows for reasonable measures when our nation is faced with enemies who seek to do us harm.

You mentioned WWII. There were some restrictions on liberties; necessary sacrifices so we could be victorious in the end and keep those liberties. If we allow ourselves to become so vulnerable that we are viciously attacked again by Islamic extremists, our government may be forced to severely scale back on our liberties.

.

Another father of our country, Thomas Jefferson, framed our government and said we should have one representative in the House per 30,000 citizens.

We now have 1 rep per 750,000 and the US House of Representatives ILLEGALLY set their own numbers at 435 over a hundred years ago. Our population has tripled since then.

While I think Frankliln's quote interesting, I find it much harder to stomach our VERY select representative group, which doesn't want to share the power with we the people who they SHOULD be representing.

I think both Ben and Thomas are shaking their heads, unable to believe we the people would give away so much of our power.

There is a reason our country is so polarized, and the answer is the House of Representatives. It DOES NOT represent.

Remember the phrase, "taxation without representation"??

I definitely agree.

Why don't we deport the Democrat and Republican leadership (including all their presidential candidates except Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich) to some totalitarian dictatorship so that we can have a free country again. The bleeding heart liberal Democrats want us to invade Darfur to "save" it. The brownshirt neo-conservative Republicans want us to wage war against our civil liberties and against every country on the planet. As far as I'm concerned, both of them should either learn to love America (not the federal government, but the traditions it stands for) or leave it.

Its a good thing that there are still some true Patriots left in this country, even though it is the hands of a bunch of Socialists (National Socialists a.k.a. Fascists and the Commies).

You can't verify your statements because you won't do the work, what a cop out! Franklin's statement was made in support of "fighting" for liberty, way to twist it to fit your warped sense of morality. If you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't be afraid of the Patriot Act. How does it in any way take away your freedoms? What? Freedom of Privacy... I don't remember that in the Bill of Rights. But, if you want privacy you can have it, nobody is illegally bugging you at your home. Even with the Patriot Act no one can convict you of a crime, they can only investigate and identify a threat. Grow up, the terrorists are at our door, I'm not afraid of them, but I don't want to make it easy on them either. Your cowardice is in your fear of Big Brother, a fictional government that would never exist.

WAKE UP AMERICA! yeah right, let the islamofascist have their nuke weapons.,that is not too far off, then they can dominate their part of the world with their religious laws...sharia, then eventually overrun us, that might take decades or centuries, they are very patient, our forefathers could not have envisioned nuke weapons, our policies have to evolve you bonehead! you ultra liberal pukes are cowards and cannot grasp the threat the Iranian government and other radicals pose, you do not have a clue, the issue is not liberty (does not even bother me what few inconveniences there are) but nuclear proliferation, this struggle will go on against radical Islam and thee Dem party is supporting our president and troops as demonstrated by their vote to fund the war against the thugs of the middle east....Iran, and all the other trash in many nations over there, you ultra libs are ignored by the Dem party! even the Dem's know it is irresponsible to be pacifists and isolationist...history has proven both polices to be wrong........you would rather die? spoken like a true yellow coward, how about you just move over there and they snuff you, works for me....like peace man.........duhhhhhhhh.

It is right to question your govt, but you must also do so rationally. Remember that under times of threat our country has suspended habeus Corpus. We have interred Japanese citizens of our country for our own safety and theirs. We have sought out and arrested communist and Nazi sympathizers. In the end, we have returned those rights. It is our jobs to be eternally vigilant to true threats on our own Liberties, but so far I do not believe the Patriot act has hurt most Americans.

However, it has uprooted plots to attack and kill our residents.

I believe right now the tradeoff is worth it.

Remember it did not take the Patriot act to use the military to destroy the Waco compound or burn children alive. It only took a President who felt the power to do so. Those are the things you should question.

The Supreme Court has also acted to make it possible for govt to confiscate private property for public gain, and this is an impingement on your rights.

The Senate wants to provide Amnesty for an eventual 100 million illegals at YOUR cost, and the cost of your Social Security and Medicare funds.

These are the true attacks on your Liberty, yet so few seem willing to attack them, why?

Good luck

We are nothing but fools if we trade civil liberties, freedoms of any kind, or privacy for (a sense of) security.

Do I think that after 9/11 its okay to give up even a tiny bit of these things to have security?

NO NO NO NO!

To do so would be to make the terrorists happy. And it would desecrate the lives of thoughs who have fought for our freedoms. They would have died for nothing.

I would rather have a dozen more 9/11s than lose any of my pre-9/11 freedoms.

Advocating changes to people's civil liberties or freedoms is totally unamerican

I agree with Ben Franklin, but only to a point. When you have total freedom you have anarchy, which is oppressing in itself. The question is how do we balance these two rights, liberty and security?