National Security v. Civil Liberties (Raby)

National Security V. Civil Liberties

National Security V. Civil Liberties

by Anthony McKinney -
Number of replies: 5

I agree with the statement, but to a certain extent. The government obligation is to protect the citizens of the United States from foreign and domestic threats. The executive branch should be able to ensure peace and tranquility on the homefront without interference that could slow their reaction time down. People should gladly give a few of their rights away to ensure their safety. If a terrorist attack were to happen many people would blame the government for not preventing it. It is hard to say where the line should be drawn, but if the government have any reasonable doubt they must do what they have to, to protect the people. The government should not abuse the power to use for personal gain.

In reply to Anthony McKinney

Re: National Security V. Civil Liberties

by Courtney Gillis -

I completely agree with you. I think the Act was drawn up to help the government protect citizens from acts of terrorism, but I think the lines were blurred. The executive agencies took things too far, and when representatives of those agencies were interviewed they either dodged the question or said the programs that were being asked about didn't include those terms. I agree that it's hard to say where the line should be drawn.

In reply to Anthony McKinney

Re: National Security V. Civil Liberties

by Zachary Kubiak -

I agree with you, Ant.  Our government definitely tries to protect us from domestic threats and they have done a decent job. 

In reply to Anthony McKinney

Re: National Security V. Civil Liberties

by Nicole Kurdziel -

I agree with the fact that the government should protect the people first, and if giving up a few rights (for citizens) is the way to do it - then so be it. I also support the idea that the government shouldn't abuse their power of gaining information. The situation is really confusing when it comes to how much security you want and what you're willing to give up to gain that.

In reply to Anthony McKinney

Re: National Security V. Civil Liberties

by Matthias Hoffmann -

I understand what your saying, it is hard to draw the line but I feel the government need to do whatever it takes to protect the people in this nation. The government could monitor us a lot worse like making us punching in/out where ever you go and paying clothes that are made to help withstand explosions. See that'd be ridiculus!!

In reply to Anthony McKinney

Re: National Security V. Civil Liberties

by Crystal Hurmiz -

I agree with you because i do think that the governments job is to keep us safe so they should do anything in their power to protect us from terroists