Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Funny, I ask the same question every time I go to an airport. And I go to many airports, Florian. In each airport I meet how my liberty has been robbed because I need to reveal everything I have because they don’t trust me to travel what I need to travel with. So my liberty is being removed. Funny, as it is, because you and I we’re called to be civilized and educated people. But we don’t trust one another. We don’t trust each other. We don’t trust anybody any more. So how much do we need to pay for that security? We’ve become the very ones oppressed as before. We did not like the enslavement of human beings. We did not like dictatorships. We did like colonizations. We did not like the oppression. And lo and behold, because we do not trust one another we’re doing the same just like the old days. Have we advanced? Have we become more advanced in our society? I don’t think so. I mean, look at yourself. Look at yourself the way you are today. Every time you go the airport you’re questioned. Even in the United States every time you go to school you have to go through the metal detectors to see if you have a gun or a weapon. So do you have your liberty? I wonder if you and I we have liberty today. We live in a world supposedly civilized, educated, advanced society and we are so limited because we fear one another. We don’t trust one another. I wonder sometimes do we even like one another? Help me to find the answer. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: I will take this as a rhetorical question in the sense that really it’s a question that people around the world are asking themselves right now. And the question of how that is answered is not a question of philosophy. It’s a question of very immediate practical urgency. Will people reject the equation, which is being put forward by Tony Blair, by John Howard, by George Bush, by politicians around the world that we have to restrict our freedoms in order to have security, that we have to give more power to the states and the states are protecting us from terrorism, the states are protecting us from the dangers of [the world]. And so, I think we have to reject this equation and have to understand that the policies that are being carried out in the name of security, in fact are making the world more insecure, not more secure. For example, the US invasion of Iraq [we were] told just to make the world safer, to counter the threat, the dangers of terrorism, the dangers of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it just made the world more dangerous, more insecure, has increased instability and violence, has driven a global arms race, as countries around the world conclude that Iraq was invaded not because that it had weapons of mass destruction, but because it did not. And so, therefore, if they want a deterrent to US power, if they want a deterrent to the world’s sole superpower, which has a stated doctrine of carrying out regime change in countries that aren’t in its interest, which believes in the doctrine of so-called preemptive strikes, which uses terrorism as an instrument of policy, and is threatening regime change in other countries, that if they want a deterrent to that sole superpower, they had better develop a military deterrent, a nuclear deterrent if possible. And so, it has made the world more dangerous, more unstable, less secure, and it’s also of course, in the process the United States of invading Iraq create more anger, more resentment in the world, which is making it more likely that people in the United States will be the targets of attack.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: I think the question here is not so much about how much of a liberty are we going to offer, but really about for how long will we continue giving away our liberty in the name of promoting security. I think it’s a matter of time when we realize that we are making ourselves more insecure by giving away our basic liberties. We are making ourselves insecure as we find in the name of promoting security, communities are being targeted, special certain races are being targeted, certain nationalities are being targeted. And by that, we are creating further divisiveness in the community in our countries that we live in. And as long as that continues to happen, we will not have security. So, if you really want to promote security, I think it is really going to be one day us recognizing that and being able to say for our security, we want our liberties back. The only way to be secure is to have our freedoms.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Very interesting and provocative question. Because certainly living in the United States and realizing that our hard earned liberties. And we know that vigilance is the price of our liberties. We can’t take it for granted. We must always be vigilant and stand up for those hard earned liberties. And the question of security in times of terrorism. Where deep fears are bound and well-based, really, are the fears of terrorist act. Where leaders who want to sacrifice some of those liberties, of free speech, and free moment, and not being singled out for security searche,s that could be seen as harassment and so forth. How much of these freedoms are we willing to sacrifice for the sake of supposed security? Good question. To me again, what’s interesting in this question is the deeper question, about what is genuine security, human security? What is security? And to live in a secure world? And what is it, in terms of true liberties and true freedom?

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: I don't believe that we've offered our liberty for our security. I think our liberties have been taken away from us under the guise of security, under the rationale of security. But there is a danger of the loss of personal liberty under the guise of security that we must be on guard of. And we must understand that it becomes very dangerous when we create reasons for taking away personal freedoms and security. So for example, during World War II when the Japanese in the United States were interned in camps, and they didn't offer their liberty, their personal freedom for the security of the country. These were executive orders that were entered to move this class of people from Japanese ancestry into relocation camps as they were called. So the people who have been imprisoned, whether in secret prisons that President Bush has admitted to within the last few days or whether in Guantanamo Bay or -- and have not been charged, I don't think that they offered their liberty for security. Their rights have been violated, have not been honored, have not been respected. So this is a danger that we have to be aware of, the taking away of personal freedoms and liberty under the guise of security interests and concerns. We must be able to utilize and uphold the rule of law, especially at times when we are faced with grave challenges as a testament to our commitment to uphold the rule of law.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: I do believe that apart from people who love adventures, that most people will do everything necessary to have security. And that they are going to do a lot, to sacrifice a lot for it. It is hard to say how much they would do for it. But I think that in the end the need for security will win. And we will always say that yes, for our security, we will give up our comfort and convenience, maybe even parts of our freedom, give up travelling and pleasures, give up a lot. I believe that this is an instinct, that people do need security and fight for their security. For people their security is of utmost importance. Thus we will give up or sacrifice a lot for our security, even if we do it unconsciously or unknowingly and would never admit it.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Our liberty. Liberty and justice for all. How much of this are we going to sacrifice for security. Department of Homeland Security in the states, and a different things that have been sacrificed in order for the security is huge, huge. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice. We shouldn’t have to offer this liberty for security. It’s more of a control of a culture of a people, taking away their liberty, controlling them for security. Now, I’m saying supposed security has the good one, that’s the crux of it, because it is not a true security. Why we offering up our liberty for something that is not for certain? When our liberties are for certain? To know how to grow your own food; to grow your own food that should be something that shouldn’t be a security issue and yet the Homeland Security comes in, in a midnight raid against a direct action to save the oldest community garden in California in Sacramento. They come in and arrest the gardeners. Why? Because they doing a demonstration instead of a protest against agribusiness. We need to reclaim our commons, liberty. Thank you Florian.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: I think that we shouldn't give up our liberty for our supposed security. But on the other hand, there are certain consideration where I think my liberty ends where my nose ends. So, my liberty cannot affect other people. So in that sense I think liberty is - has a strong dimensional responsibility, and we need to be responsible with our own liberty. The problem is when under the idea of supposed securities, the leaders, or certain sectors of our societies, start to restrict the freedom or the basic liberty of the collective, of the majority. But this is also something dangerous. Example shows us that when we give up our liberty this can become to be a problem. Right now, there are cases where people that give their information, that open [or] intimacy, that really open, that they don't have anything to hide, we don't have anything to hide, we share everything, now all that information has been used for strange purposes. I know the case sometimes of companies that take private people information, and turn it into business, or getting your intimacy to really knows what is your preferences as a consumer, to be able to target you with products. So there is a line there where we should be very strong advocates of taking care of liberty, but with a strong sense of responsibility. That this liberty, this freedom, my personal freedom is a shared freedom in a collective, in our society.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: You have answered the question negatively, since you called our security "supposed security". Should we at all offer our liberty for something which is foggy, unsure and supposed? Big part of oppressive régimes specially so called socialistic regimes in near past used paroles of outside danger and threaded by unknown enemy, to increase oppression towards the population. By doing so they made lives of population to the living in the armed camps.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: I think, unfortunately, too much, particularly if we buy into this so-called War on Terror. I think with this kind propaganda and manipulation, I think unscrupulous governments justify greater controls over their own people, and they do it manipulating fear; often making it happen through psychological, black psychological operations, state-sponsored terrorism, media manipulation. I think real security can only lie in creating peace and that really requires that we build true consensual relationships between our cultures and our peoples. I think collective peace is going to become more and more the requirement, particularly as our resources get more depleted. I think Dennis Kucinich, an American politician, is right when he says we need a Department of Peace. I’d like to see a Department of Peace in every national government. There’s an old saying that “whatever you put your attention on grows” and if we put our attention on this idea of protecting ourselves against “the fear,” I think that’s where our – that’s what’s going to grow, so. We should never really give up our own liberty, I don’t think.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Catherine David: As less as possible. And we have to be very observant as our so called security is used more and more to obtrude us systems of control which are opposite to the individual freedom. So we have to be very resolute, we have to avoid going where it is too complicated, too impossible, too humiliating, we have to avoid travelling in the United States. And I am very resolute concerning not to travel to countries which annoy us with the demand of visa - there are so many other beautiful countries in the world. We have to try to keep a stiff upper lip and to keep a common sense. And we have to tell to the customs officials that a little pair of nail scissors to cut your nails if you travel a lot is less dangerous than the american foreign policy. Unfortunately, I realise that a great majority of the people is totally unable to react, or they completely agree to what's happening, and I don't know why as I am not a pschoanalyst or a psychiatrist, but I realise how the people accept that enormous safety measures are imposed on them, which are totally oversized, and that happens above all in countries where there were no seriouis accidents or impacts at all. So I have to repeat it once again: you have to avoid getting treated like a minor, you have to avoid that they pollute your life for alleged, unproved and imaginary terrorist threats.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: I think it should be on individuals, but we shouldn't also hide behind these liberties. What about those who don't have liberty? I think we should rather not worry of losing our liberty. It is better if we even have this liberty. What about those who have none?

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: This question arises naturally for the moment first of all in the United States, in addition, in Western Europe in struggles with terroristic attacks. If one considers that already Kennedy let spy out Martin Luther King by installing secret listening devices in his hotel rooms, if one considers, that Roosevelt had detained hundredthousands American citizens of Japanese origin after the assault in Pearl Harbor, the same from Churchill in Europe of detainment of foreigners, which just never are publicly. If one keeps all this in memory, it seems peculiar that today in percents many Americans justify or depreciating facts that for instance the American government does eavesdropping on all international calls under the excuse to go against terrorism, civilian citizen right liberties, which are constitutionally justified and at all the ideas and spirit-historical background of the American condition in the sense of John Locke, in the sense of the civil liberty, to which already Alexis Tocqueville referred. If one considers, like these citizen-legal liberties, those actually America, is a democracy, should distinguish and thus the west as superelevated liberty term, which one would like to carry allegedly into the world, democratically to legitimize, it seems doubtful that this restriction of civil liberties is to be justified by terrorism. In America one has the impression that citizen right liberties are scooped out and into partial McCarthy well-behaved form today against the civilian population are used. This is unfortunately not in time to turn away can.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Cornel West: The complex relation between liberty and security is an interesting one. On the one hand, we must have substantive liberties so that we have something to protect in our security. On the other hand, one can lose one’s liberty when one in fact is so insecure that one is fearful of external force. The balance between liberty and security has to do with the presence of justice and it has to do with confidence in leadership and it has to do with international cooperation, international coagulation such that peoples around the world feel secure and feel as if they are being treated fairly and justly. No justice, no peace without justice, but also there’s no security without people feeling themselves being treated fairly. In the Western democratic experiments, now there is an escalating authoritarianism as more and more liberties, rights are being attenuated in the name of national security. This is dangerous as various crypto-fascist motifs appearing where presidents are outside of the accountability of Congress and parliaments, where executive branches are outside of the accountability of legislative branches. This is very dangerous. This creates an imbalance that generates even more fear and insecurity which itself becomes even more raw stuff for more crypto-fascist possibilities. This question is a relevant one and is one that we all need to wrestle with in a Socratic and subcritical way.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: In my point of view, it's not all so fair if you are going to give more than 20 percent for liberty in the name of security. For me, I would be willing to give the 18 percent of my liberty in the name of security; that's to make sure that it will lead actually to a liberty for all, a protection for all. So, in my personal point of view, I can offer that much, 18 percent of my liberty in the name of security. It's hard. You might be -- if you are giving more, it might be abused by those people who are asking it in the name of security. It's just like in our country, the government are requesting all the ID system -- in terms of ID system. They are actually asking for individuals for their use to take or to give part of their liberty in the name of the ID system for security purposes. But it's good if all the informations that they will get will really be used for the security. But the problem is who knows; they might use them to take personal informations which leads to violation of human rights of individuals like me. So, be careful; don't give too much of your liberty in the name of security.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas