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.

[Logophile]

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.

And who will keep us safe from the United States government?

I worry more about what the IRS can do to me than what al Qaeda might do.

[FrogMom]

She can eat my shorts.

[expatguy]

from "An American Expat in Southeast Asia" ...Our respect for the sanctity of life has in the past, and has always been our greatest protection from the ultimate tyranny of an all-powerful state and yet in recent years we seem to have willingly subjugated ourselves by allowing the State to become the ultimate arbitrator in determinations of who is worthy of life and who is not. Having elevated the State on such a pedestal, we have in essence charted our own destiny, we have chosen the path that will ultimately lead to our own peril.

...In the years ahead, as the world tries desperately to cope with population increases, demographic imbalances, unemployment, and both external and internal threats from quasi-fascist movements such as Islamic fundamentalism it will be social order and stability that will become of paramount importance to many people, much more so than liberty or freedom. Having already placed their lives in the omnipotent hands of the State, is it really such a leap of logic for one to foresee that individuals in the near future will think nothing of sacrificing freedom for security?.

hopefully this will help break me from my prolonged period of writer's block

[realcleanguy]

It seems our worst fears are upon us. The Fascist power grab is gaining speed. Obama is preparing us for civil disobedience and riots. Already the UN has vehicles and equipment staged in Florida. If you havent adequate ammo, you had better get it. “For the times they are a changin’”.

What’s funny, if Bush had said this when he was president, the LW would be marching in the streets. Now, they are silent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTeBvi4bw0I

[GladesGuru]

Would some one please tell that fat ugly freak that touching the Internet may well bring on revolt?

However, given how ‘revolting’ she is, behaviorally and surficially, there is the likelihood she thinks revolting is OK.

Pray for the Republic.

[Dallas59]

Oh my Nappy! Just a few short years ago...

[broken_arrow1]

Screw yourself Big Sis, and the horse you rode in on!

[FrankR]

"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.”

Yeah, porky...that's what Brewer is trying to tell you refugees from an insane asylum up there, but you want to sue her and Arizona for it. I think that quote should be used by Brewers defense attorney, as you just won her case for her...dipstick.

You want to keep the country safe, get rid of all that "politically correct" B.S., stop worrying about "profiling", and give us all the right to carry...we'll keep it safe for you.

The government can't even run the post office or the licensing bureau...somehow they don't make me feel very safe, at least not with the current CIC (clown in chief) at the helm.

[bamahead]

Up yours, Janet.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here

[bereanway]

Terror, terrorist, terrorism.......I didn't know there was such a thing. Now, we're expected to sacrifice constitutional rights for a nonexistent threat?

[Still Thinking]

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

No, you were right the first time. Have you seen this womyn?

[Biggirl]

Remember in November!

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

The Homeland Security was the brainchild of Liebermann in the Senate with help of McCain.

Bush didn’t want it in the first place!

[Outlaw Woman]

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

Well that's because they were afraid that their plans for the country would be exposed during a time when something might have been done. Now that they are in power, there is no reason to 'hide' their intentions.

[counterpunch]

But he signed it.
Bush could have set the tone that we will not let the terrorists win by changing our way of life, or limiting our own freedoms at home.
But he didn’t. Most certainly not by his actions.

Let’s not forget that much of what Bush did was to try to overcompensate politically for 9/11 happening on his watch. His response was to overreach in many ways, so Americans could see he was “doing something.”

[wolfcreek]

That wasn’t the *Left*, necessarily.

Plenty of us on this side of the aisle saw what was happening. And it been happening for over a hundred years.

[Rocky]

Says the leader of the new S.S.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin, February 1775

[lonestar]

With that “nut” still on the payroll it’s a miracle we haven’t all been blownup already!

[kbennkc]

Those who think I will trade my civil liberties for security from Big Sister

need a Tony Lama in the keister . kbennkc

Keister is much more Reaganesque than @$$.