Americans never had liberties. Although most of us are not free , we are told from the cradle to the grave that we are. Capitalism gives us just as many liberties as our red, white, and blue flag does, none. It's no democracy when the rich rule. After the september 11th attack President Bush is forcing us to give up our remaining liberties while we are brainwashed by the propaganda in the media. And for our founding fathers, the country was founded on mass extermination of of indigenous people which we celebrate every July 4th.
It is [of] the utmost importance that America maintains the freedoms thousands of men and women have fought and died for. In the ordeal following Sept. 11, I sympathize but I also understand the steps taken by the United States government to secure this nation. Should liberty be sacrificed for security? I say yes, however liberty must be maintained justly, and the natural rights a human has been given from birth should not be infringed upon. Targeting a minority group will lead to racial predjudices, but I also believe that targeting these small groups may arise anger and ironically cause another terrorist attack on the United States. The US should do more to realize its not the people who are the threat but the ideas forced upon them. At present the US is attacking something it does not understand and has very little control over. This situation may actually hurt us and not help us. If we are to have a nation safe for its citizens diplomatic relations should be maintain with that nation before the US decides to take any military action.
Who really is right and who really is wrong? Yes, our founding fathers said everyone should have all three: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Isn't that right? Well, now in the present and the future people seem to erase that from our minds and go about their own ways to figure out what they think is really our civil rights as citizens. Everyone has a right to do something he or she wishes to accomplish, but the person who tries to stop him from doing it is violating his rights or liberty. Isn't that the same as trying to stop a personís desire from harming another?
Yes, think about all those well-known people who have made the wrong choices and made them look bad, but everyone makes mistakes without knowing it to save themselves and their loved ones from harm or loss. To balance the national security of considering civil liberties, the best way is to make in agreement with all people of different races, so no one is alienated, and decide a way to negotiate so their home country loved ones feel satisfied. All need to know that there are no such things as anti-government militias, or biased individual organizations that would harm our country because all these people who make up these groups are the most fearful people of themselves and what they are truly up against to think they could possibly wipe out a huge group of strong individuals. But if there needs to be things done for a balance of national security to work, I think some American citizens are willing to give up some liberties and compromise with others because in a way everyone's rights are being protected, if everyone believes that the most important idea that America wants, right now, is a unified group of American citizens who will act together and put the balance of national security trustworthy for the sake of this year's recent events.
I believe that that the United States can and should deny some rights and/or civil liberties in order to increase the level of security in the nation. There are many reasons that support this statement.
The first reason is that the security of the nation should come before any individual's rights. By compromising the rights of citizen temporarily, we can ensure their safety. The US is denying rights to citizens for their safety, not to be prejudice.
Another reason is that those rights denied are not that severe. The US is not barging into people's homes and searching it, nor are they imprisoning us. They are just doing what they need to do to prevent any more diasters.
The final reason that supports the statment is that if these precautions are not taken by compromising some rights and/or civil liberties, the price paid will be devastating. The benefits of temporarily eliminating some rights/civil liberties well out weighs the benefits of having all citizens keep their rights and in turn have another diaster come upon us.
In conclusion, I feel that it benefits the entire nation to compromise rights for a higher level of security. The effect of compromising rights and/or civil liberties does not compare to the effect of what another international incident would have.
My opinion on all this is that we need security in our country, even if its picking on one group. I feel that if there [are]doubts it's better to be safe then sorry, we dont have to exclude a group completly, but check up on them. If we feel we have reasons to suspect about a certain group, that is enough to make us do something about it and make sure our nation is safe. Even though it might have a affect on our rights, what would be our liberty if we didnt have security, with out our country being safe, we wouldnt be able to have any liberty.