Napolitano says keeping America safe may require civil liberty, privacy trade-offs

Associated Press ^ | June 18, 2010

[Free ThinkerNY]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

[sodpoodle]

As in Arizona?????????

[Marty62]

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” B. Franklin

[ReneeLynn]

Aren’t these the people who threw their heads back and howled at the Patriot Act?

[counterpunch]

Fascist power grab.
I wonder what Judge Napolitano has to say about this...
 

[Halgr]

Big Brother (Sister) is ushering in an Orwellian FUTURE!!!!

It baffles me that the majority of FReepers still don’t comprehend the coming “New World Order”.

So many frogs in the pot.

[Diogenesis]

Child abuse, human and drug smuggling, bribery, money laundering.
These are just some of the crimes committed by employees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as highlighted in a report issued by the DHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG) in May.
From October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009, the OIG reviewed 16,777 complaints from which the Inspector opened 1,056 cases, closing just over 1,021 of them.
Of those cases, 283 arrests were made, 248 indictments handed down and 241 convictions were ruled.

[anniegetyourgun]

I’ve no doubt that is their intention to eliminate privacy & control the masses.

[Jackson57]

But but but ... it was George Bush that was taking away civil liberties.

[jimfree]

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - B. Franklin

[wku man]

People on this very forum sang the praises of the "Patriot" Act back when Jorge Bush rammed it through Congress. A few of us were concerned about what a dictator would do with those powers (I was thinking Hilldebeast was a shoo-in at that time).

It really sucks to be right sometimes.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[jimfree]

You beat me. Mine is post 10.

[counterpunch]

These are also the people who says there is no War On Terror.
America will never get its freedom back until DHS is dismantled.

[RFEngineer]

“As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans’ civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.”

Why do I feel like she’s not talking about trading off non-existent civil and privacy rights of illegal immigrants and terrorists - and planning only to “trade off” the constitutional rights of US citizens?

What exactly would our founding fathers do in the face of this nonsense, and why would she expect us to easily dispense with certain inalienable rights that have been endowed in us by our Creator?

[Marty62]

At least FR members know about the Founders.

[expatguy]

http://laotze.blogspot.com/2005/06/crossing-of-rubicon-whoever-saves-one.html

[freekitty]

BS from Pig.

[sauropod]

This is exactly what the Left screamed about during W’s administration.

Now they are doint it.

[counterpunch]

It was. Bush should have known that once he created yet another Department, there was no going back, ever.

[Eva]

Never forget that Napolitano earned her Progressive creds by defending Anita Hill in her accusations against Clarence Thomas. Everything this woman says must be viewed with that in mind.