Your thoughts on this Ben Franklin quote....is it still relevant?

The whole purpose of fighting terrorism and despotism and all those horrible things is to preserve our freedoms and liberties. Those are the reasons we founded the US in the first place! To say we have to give up our freedoms and liberties in order to preserve the US is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are giving up what we are trying to save, in order to save it.

The War on Terror is not really about terror at all, just as the War on Drugs was not really about drugs. They were both justifications to erode the Bill of Rights, to give government, and those who control government, more power over our lives.

The War on Drugs allowed police to hassle people at random on the street, to search and question without a warrant, to summarily confiscate homes, cars, money and property without a warrant or any 'due process', to tap phones without a warrant, etc., and to use illegally gathered evidence in court. It engendered a lot of laws taking power away from defendants and judges and giving it to prosecutors and police. It had NO effect on the illegal use of drugs in the US, in fact drug use has only increased.

The War on Terror takes this even farther. It allows someone to be arrested and jailed indefinitely with no evidence against him, no charges, no access to a lawyer, no Habeas Corpus. It basically gives the presidential administration unlimited power to jail anyone at any time for any reason or no reason. It allows the govt. to investigate any aspect of our lives. Tell me this is never going to be used for political purposes! 8^P

In the US you have more chance of being struck by lightning than killed by terrorists. You have more chance of a building falling on you in an earthquake. Yet politicians tell us we have to give up the very essence of what makes the US a great country in order to fight this really very minor threat. Plus, our govt. is really doing all it can to INCREASE terrorism around the world.

Ben Franklin Quote Liberty

Specifically as it applies in the context in which you frame it, yes, totally relevant, appropriate and proportionate. "... more comprehensive precautions due to the complex nature of the world we live in..."? You don't think anybody said that to Ben Franklin? Comprehensive precautions proportionate to a particular technology? Okay, fine but how do the complexities of emerging technologies translate to repeal of habeas corpus? What is the technological precedent for that? I think the Patriot Act is a textbook perfect example of exactly what Franklin was talking about, and also, more textbook material: "Isn't it perfectly logical to assume... without these enhanced security measures... we may not have a constitution... left to defend?" If we repeal the Constitution, do we have a Constitution 'left to defend'?

Well.. for starters you're going to have to define what an essential liberty is. We trade liberty for security all the time, and usually don't even blink an eye at it.

Speed limits. Stop Signs. Red Lights. All are a trade of liberty for security.

We just need to look at if the trade is worth it. Being forced to drive 20 mph through a school zone is worth it, because I know that my kids or my nieces and nephews are a lot less likely to get hit by a car.

The Patriot act really needs to be viewed in the same light.. but with a lot larger stakes.

The government could easily abuse the Patriot Act, as well as its powerful position, to do exactly as Ben Franklin warns. I do not believe that it does, or that it will. It is somewhat relevant though.

One part where the quote breaks down is the fact that methods that terrorists would or could use to evade standard legal wiretaps exist. I find no evidence of people being harmed by the Patriot Act for doing nothing wrong, and plenty of terrorists being caught.

Liberty always has it's price and those who forget this are destined to loose it. We must be vigilant both as a nation and as individuals against anyone who seeks to limit our liberties. It matters not if those seeking to limit our liberty are outside forces such as terrorist or our own government. While the measures you mention may be necessary to a large degree, we must remember that the target of the terrorism we face is our freedom. Should we voluntarily give up too much liberty in our defense of freedom, however safe we feel, we have still lost and the terrorist have attained their goal.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson,

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

The neo-cons prefer Sarah Palin's summary: If ya gotcha some liberty then give up for safety cause ya can't never tell, the lefties like that Franklin guy, even though he invented contact lenses and round framed glasses, might choose to close the banks.

Society IS the trading of Liberty for Safety.

But Franklin's quote remains germain.

Complete safety is an illusion, and a total loss of Liberty renders it irrelevant regardless.

I would defer judging the relevance of the quote until we see how much further the feds intrude on our personal liberties. At some point we may all agree we live in a police state. Here's another quote that may be relevant: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

That has got to be one of the most misused quotes I see here, constantly regurgitated (usually) liberals in some flacid attempt to denigrate George Bush. The worst part is that Franklin first used that in a letter to the King of England, petitioning the King to provide funding to arm the settlers in western Pennsylvania and Ohio so they could defend themselves against the Indians, aka the terrorists of the day.

It's sort of ironic to see people today using a quote from a letter asking the government to help protect against terrorists in an attempt to vilify the government for trying to protect against terrorists.