Nov 16, 2007 3:34:56 PM cite

How much of our liberty we are going to offer for our supposed security? Governments are using the threat of terrorism to take away our liberty so they can have complete control over us, they will not stop until all freedom is lost.

by Thai sean

Sep 30, 2006 12:14:41 AM cite

My short answer to this is: NONE. However, given the situation as it is, I suggest there will be, or even is coming, a sea change in attitude towards the perceived need for security as opposed to the perceived threat. This will most certainly come when it become practically impossible to move without being identified.

by RedSevenOne

Sep 26, 2006 9:59:08 PM cite

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that those who would surrender their liberty for security deserve niether.

by hhuff

Sep 10, 2006 5:51:33 PM cite

There is no security "outside". Security is an inner state of being and it comes only with knowledge - knowledge about the self - und appreciation of the self and by this automatically appreciation of everything. Trying to control events is a work of Sysiphos. You will never attain it. Instead of control a human being needs the ability of free choice. This would be up to the expanding consciousness.

by mbl

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: The person who asked this question must be European. This question is strongly posed in the societies where there is liberty, so security could damage liberty in these societies. In other societies where there is neither security nor liberty we do not know which worry we should have. Should we worry about liberty? Or should we worry about security? In these societies both cases cooperate with each other where people live without liberty and security. Generally in these societies it is said to people that dictatorships can guarantee the stability but without liberty.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I have already mentioned the example of my country. Democratical security is the basic idea of the actual government in my country to the costs of the individual liberty. It think that a society which is always worrying about the security has surely many owes. A society that has to barricade itself and to offer itself and to arm itself for protection is surely a society that has lost the word of quality of life. People and individuals that live constantly vigilated are people that lost completely their liberty and that are living at very low levels of quality of life and don’t have any quality of life anymore. They are societies that have to barricade themselves like for example the United States and many other societies in order to protect themselves and so they have completely lost their quality of life.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea: As part of the ancestors who were slaves in Africa this affected at the level of us in America because many of the population [inaudible] come from African ancestors. So much power which existed in Africa if we hadn´t been enslaved I think that some apects of the world had changed. But the best thing of this process of slavery that we [inaudible] us with all our races, our culture, our tradition and our costumes everything was [inaudible] by our African ancestors and for us at the level of America this was a great gift which gave us our ancestors at one hundred seven years we live and handle our own culture and our own identity which not [inaudible].

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 1:35:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Florian, thanks for the question. Of course this issue of the erosion if civil liberties is very much on the lips of everybody. Because as the world kind of cascades towards and into its current conflictual mode, so the high priests of security are able to sing their songs. First of all we should ask ourselves why is it that the world is so insecure at the moment. Well, the world is so insecure at the moment because certain people have made it insecure. You know, that the world is conflicted, and the world is in conflict with itself at the moment. This presents the opportunity of a particular form of government to come to the fore to offer you security, because it’s the same government that made you feel insecure in the first place. You create the [inaudible] of insecurity in order to govern with having security as your main political franchise that you sell people. So, you make them insecure and then you tell them that you will provide them with security. So, I think it’s very important for us to ask a very important question. Why is it that we are allowing ourselves to be governed in a manner that has cost the world in such a [mantle] of insecurity. That’s an important question to ask right now.

by Andries Botha

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