A | More | Perfect | Union --  Japanese Americans and the U.S. Constitution
The Japanese American ExperienceReflectionsCollection SearchResourcesCredits

Post a Response

E-mail Address (optional)

By contributing your comments, you agree that the Smithsonian may make use of them for educational, research and museum purposes, including publication. A selection of comments may be posted on our Web site at the discretion of the curatorial staff after review. Please see the Smithsonian's privacy policy.

Search for keywords in all of the reflections and responses.

Security vs. Liberty found 24 stories, showing stories 1-5

What are our rights? When was it our right to own a car and clothes? These are just luxuries that we are lucky to have in America. And when is it the American way to not be able to share and compromise? We cannot not give up a right for security. Wouldn't you rather live in a peaceful country than a fearful and warlike one?

Juliana, do you honestly think that we need security in our country, even if you pick on one group? The way Hitler picked on the Jew's? You really think that will help our country function? Care to fill me in?

Michael Burns
To balance national security with the rights and civil liberties of its citizens to make everybody happy is virtually impossible. Many topics come up like the government tapping phone lines; people feel that this is an invasion of their privacy. Privacy is important but at the same time so is catching terrorists. The Government is going to have to invade the rights and civil liberties in one way or another. With out national security our nation would be living in a great amount of fear. I believe by doing border checks and being very strict with airport security is giving our nation a bit of reassurance. If times get worse then more civil rights will have to be given up. As the old expression goes you have to give an eye for an eye. This case being giving up civil rights for national security. Another way to balance national security with civil rights would be to set a limit on both national security and civil rights. These limits could be that the government would not be allowed to invade ones privacy with out having reason. The limit on civil rights could start out as being simple as not being able to specific countries with out reason. These are just examples of what could be done to balance national security with civil rights. I am not saying that our rights as a United States citizen should be taken away or am I saying that we should not have national security. There can be no set way of balancing national security with civil liberties. We are just going to have to wait and see what future situations will bring us before we decide what should be done.

Without national security there would be no individual rights. We must do all we can to protect it. A little "invasion" of privacy here and there will not strip us of our rights. A government cannot survive without national security thus a nation would fall as well. Sacrificing some tiny liberties such as freedom of press during wartime is necessary. Do you view yourself as more important than those around you? This life should not revolve around us it should be to help others. Protecting thousands of people is more important than your individual rights. But to go to the extent of restricting rights to bear arms will just be plain ridiculous!

What good are unlimited rights, if you are living under attack and fear all the time? I would much rather have a few rights taken away for a brief period and then live in peace.

   Result Pages 1 2 3 4 5    Next Page>>
Smithsonian - National Museum of American History - Behring Center