What does this mean?

[Dick]

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

 

I would like to know the opinion from others as to what this means?

[AnRSguy]

It probably derives form what Benjamin Franklin said in 1759 - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

Some are of the belief that since 9/11 some of our freedoms and privacy had been tread upon by the government. I would take that line to mean that President Obama does not hold the same view as did the previous administration.

[Francois_Dumas]

I read it as there IS no choice: BOTH safety and ideals need to be honored, without abolishing one for the other.

[smiller]

I took it to mean that the use of imprisonment without trial, surreptitious 'renditions', wiretapping without court approval, etc., as methods of protecting our safety are not very representative of American ideals. But Francois is probably more correct.

[Dave McReynolds]

I took it to mean that the use of imprisonment without trial, surreptitious 'renditions', wiretapping without court approval, etc., as methods of protecting our safety are not very representative of American ideals. But Francois is probably more correct.

 

I would take it to mean that resorting to the things you mention in order to ensure our safety ultimately does not ensure our safety. That utilizing methods that have been found legal and have worked for us in the past is a better method of ensuring our long-term safety. That utilizing methods such as you mention as an expediency undermines our reputation both at home and abroad, and so ultimately will undermine our safety.

[beemerman2k]

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

 

I would like to know the opinion from others as to what this means?

 

 

Honestly? I wouldn't put much credence in it. I think I know what it means, but he hasn't served a day in office yet. God forbid, but if he ever faces a 9/11, then we'll see what his statement really means. As of now, he's simply spouting ideals, not policy or a real world reaction to an actual 9/11 type day. Please do not confuse his ideals with real world policy. The former is crystal clear, the latter will be quite gray I expect.

[Whip]

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

 

I would like to know the opinion from others as to what this means?

 

 

Honestly? I wouldn't put much credence in it. I think I know what it means, but he hasn't served a day in office yet. God forbid, but if he ever faces a 9/11, then we'll see what his statement really means. As of now, he's simply spouting ideals, not policy or a real world reaction to an actual 9/11 type day. Please do not confuse his ideals with real world policy. The former is crystal clear, the latter will be quite gray I expect.

 

100% +1

 

 

[Ron_B]

It's long amazed me how many people who, justifiably concerned with erosion of civil liberties, think that the times we live in are unique in this respect while ignoring the historical record of other Presidents. Take Abraham Lincoln for example.

 

Most Americans consider Lincoln one of the greatest of our Presidents, an opinion I share. Indeed, We've heard many references to him the last couple of weeks. History, however, is a bit more complicated. Lincoln took many controversial wartime measures. He feared the loss of Washington, which would have been the result if "border state" Maryland seceded. Lincoln's solution was to arrest secessionist state legislators and have them imprisoned without habeas corpus. He had a pro-southern Ohio Congressmen, Clement Vallandigham imprisoned and eventually "deported" to the Confederacy. Likewise, he pursued other cases of so-called sedition while ignoring habeas corpus.

 

Other examples:

 

John Adams signed the "Alien and Sedition Acts."

 

Woodrow Wilson promoted and signed the "Sedition Act of 1918."

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the "Smith Act," and an executive order that resulted in the internment of over 100,000 American citizens of Japanese descent.

 

All of these Presidents are considered great men, and all of them took measures in times of crisis that were arguably unconstitutional. I'm not trying to say that they were right or wrong, indeed, it's hard to justify many of them. I'm just saying that in an historical context, such things are not new.

[ghaverkamp]

All of these Presidents are considered great men, and all of them took measures in times of crisis that were arguably unconstitutional. I'm not trying to say that they were right or wrong, indeed, it's hard to justify many of them. I'm just saying that in an historical context, such things are not new.

 

If such things were new, perhaps the concern over complacency some of us have wouldn't be as justified.

 

Of the 3 non-Lincoln you list, 2 were during declared wars. More importantly, while they may have been unconstitutional, at least they were passed openly, by the legislature, rather than unconstitutional conduct performed in secret under the guise of "national security." The Alien and Sedition Acts were not signed during a declared war, but their problems were openly recognized by a greater American, Thomas Jefferson, and dealt with swiftly.

 

As for Lincoln's transgressions, people have obviously chosen diminish the negatives in favor of the positives. We did, after all, have a nation falling apart.

 

Maybe history will look at the just-ended administration in a better light, should there ever be any proof to support their assertions.

[tallman]

All of these Presidents are considered great men, and all of them took measures in times of crisis that were arguably unconstitutional. I'm not trying to say that they were right or wrong, indeed, it's hard to justify many of them. I'm just saying that in an historical context, such things are not new.

 

If such things were new, perhaps the concern over complacency some of us have wouldn't be as justified.

 

Of the 3 non-Lincoln you list, 2 were during declared wars. More importantly, while they may have been unconstitutional, at least they were passed openly, by the legislature, rather than unconstitutional conduct performed in secret under the guise of "national security." The Alien and Sedition Acts were not signed during a declared war, but their problems were openly recognized by a greater American, Thomas Jefferson, and dealt with swiftly.

 

As for Lincoln's transgressions, people have obviously chosen diminish the negatives in favor of the positives. We did, after all, have a nation falling apart.

 

Maybe history will look at the just-ended administration in a better light, should there ever be any proof to support their assertions.

 

 

[Hoover]

Quite simply put, we should not infringe on our freedoms in the name of protecting our freedoms.

 

I do not disagree with this, but I think we need to come to the realization that some of those ideals are a long way away from becoming reality. We live in a very real world of dangerous threats made against the US, some by nut jobs who just make threats, and some by people who are very capable of following through on those threats. Sept 11, 2001 showed us that we are not invulnerable. We as a people made some knee jerk reactions to these attacks, accepted some of this to protect ourselves and our loved ones (I know not everybody thought it was a good idea, but the majority did). But over time the administration continued to impose these kinds of infringments on our freedoms instead of finding a better way to detect and handle these threats while ensuring our freedoms are not removed. Never mind the extra liberties that were taken, but to not make this political, we won't go there.

 

It it just time to find the better way. I am concerned over the feelings of just "put it back the way it was" because 9/11 showed us in a horrific way that "how it was", was not good enough.

 

I personally do not mind a little extra security before walking on an airplane. I don't like airplanes any how. I do think it is ridiculous that I can't bring my hair shampoo in an overnight bag and carry it on. Instead of finding more things I can't carry on, find a better way to detect what you are looking for...

[StuGotz]

Moderator's note: Political content deleted.