MESSAGE
| DATE | 2015-11-25 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout-NYLXS] security and tracking in the land of terrorism
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/europe/paris-attacks-civil-liberties-security.html?ref=middleeast
For Readers of The Times, a Preference for Keeping Liberties in Days of
Terror
By HANNA INGBERNOV. 24, 2015
Photo
Police officers patrolled near the Eiffel Tower in Paris on Monday, part
of a major crackdown in the City of Light. Credit Yoan Valat/European
Pressphoto Agency
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page
Email
Save
As France reacts to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris with a show of
force — the police have been breaking down doors to raid homes,
conducting searches without warrants and hauling suspects to police
stations — the debate over how societies should balance civil liberties
and national security takes on even greater relevance.
We asked readers of The New York Times to weigh in on this issue and
received an enthusiastic response. Nearly 1,000 joined the discussion,
offering their views on what steps societies should or should not take
to prevent future acts of terrorism in their communities.
The comments represented a wide range of views and political
philosophies, but the ones that seemed to resonate the most with readers
of The Times overwhelmingly supported protecting civil liberties.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
A patrol Tuesday in La Défense, a business district west of Paris
where two of the men killed in a raid last week were said to be planning
to blow themselves up.
Two Paris Attackers Planned Another Assault, Prosecutor SaysNOV. 24,
2015
The police guarded a Paris hotel where President François Hollande
spoke on Thursday. France has stepped up use of its emergency powers
since Friday’s attacks.
As France and Belgium Strengthen Security, a Classic Debate
ArisesNOV. 19, 2015
“My bias leads to me to think that the greatest shame would be to
attempt to secure ourselves to the point where the beauty and wonder of
life cannot reach us,” wrote Lyle F. Bogart in Tacoma, Wash.
Several commenters wrote that our response to acts of terrorism should
be proportionate to the risk. There are greater risks in the United
States, they wrote — like traffic accidents, mass shootings, cars, guns
and cigarettes — than being killed in a terrorist act.
“The problem with trading liberty for security is the fact that security
is an illusion,” wrote Matt in Seattle. “Humans have never, in recorded
history, had security from external threats, and that’s no different
today than in the past.”
There were, however, some commenters who saw an obligation to swing the
pendulum in the other direction, arguing for the need to prioritize
security and make compromises in the face of the unique threat of
extremism now.
A reader in Weston, Conn., who used the name Pragmatist, wrote that
there was a “religious war being perpetrated by radical Islam.” This
reader argued that countries facing threats from their own residents
“have every right and responsibility to infiltrate neighborhoods,
monitor activities, tap phones and emails, close mosques and arrest
imams when inciting, arrest instigators, etc.”
Others too, like Ravi in Tokyo, wrote that actions like those being
taken in France are appropriate during times of national crisis. “There
is no other option left other than to focus on Muslim communities to
identify potential terrorists,” he wrote.
On The Times’s platform, readers have the opportunity to note which
comments they want to “recommend” to others to read. The security-first
philosophy did not seem to resonate with as many readers of The Times as
those comments received far fewer “recommends” than the ones arguing for
the safeguarding of civil liberties.
Many commenters wrote about the general need to protect liberties in
society at large, while others expressed just how intimate this issue
can be. Those readers expressed a feeling of being personally threatened
by government infringements on one’s privacy and rights.
“Under no circumstances I want any government agent to infringe upon one
nanometer of my space without a properly executed warrant authorized by
a court; after that I want to see a judicial official immediately, or as
soon as possible in the presence of a lawyer representing me, and the
government agent cannot coerce or torture me to answer any question s/he
may have,” wrote F&M in Houston. “I want this protection even if there
is a threat of an atom bomb out there and they ‘think’ I know something
about it. Period.”
Numerous readers quoted the founding fathers as well as 18th century
political philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke on
the issue. A quote by Benjamin Franklin, posted by Alan Singer of
Windsor Terrace, Brooklyn — “Those who would give up essential liberty,
to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor
safety,” — was recommended by other readers more than 150 times.
That same quote appeared multiple times in the debate. Benjamin Wittes,
a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and the
editor of the blog Lawfare, told NPR earlier this year that while the
quotation is often used in the context of concern over government
surveillance, it actually was related to a tax dispute. The quotation,
according to Mr. Wittes, “defends the authority of a legislature to
govern in the interests of collective security.”
In the middle of the anxiety in much of the West over security and the
fear of terrorism, some readers cautioned against labeling all Muslims
as terrorists and pointed out that most groups had extremists among them.
“Blaming an entire group composing of millions of people for the actions
of a few individuals has never been a morally decent, or even practical,
policy,” wrote CityBumpkin. “It has always been a foolish idea, born of
fear and anger.”
Some readers suggested that the debate was actually a false argument and
that civil liberties and national security were not mutually exclusive.
Alamac in Beaumont, Tex., wrote that what was needed most was effective
police work.
“Roll back the Orwellian state,” the reader wrote. “Re-establish the
Bill of Rights. Hire competent police who know how to do real police
work. And we’ll be both safer and freer.”
And just because governments should protect individuals’ rights, doesn’t
mean they need to stop the fight against the militant group the Islamic
State, wrote John Lentini Big of Pine Key, Fla.
“We should continue to destroy ISIS by all means available, but if we
cannot retain our freedom in the fight, we have lost, even if we manage
to kill them all.”
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
