Saturday, December 17, 2005

The Annals Of Intelligence

Via The Independent, MI5 ruled London bombers 'not threat'

This just shows how difficult it is to defend liberal societies whose enemies find it ridiculously easy to blend in. If trapping these monsters -- before they mow down innocent people -- requires minor sacrifices of civil liberties, why are so many liberals this exercised?

Isn't being able to live the greatest civil liberty of all? Why is the terrorist threat to that right being minimized versus imperceptible dilutions of individual liberties by the state?

6 comments:

doubtinggaurav said...

PR,

Actually I can undestand some of the liberal objections , which is who define how much of liberty has to be sacrificed ,hence absolutist position.

While I agree with you, even I am stuck at what will be the formulae for liberty vs. security tradeoff.

Regards

PS. So much activity ?

Primary Red said...

The flu!! Stuck at home -- so ...!!

Best regards

doubtinggaurav said...

PR,

Get well soon :-).

I understand this is not the best time for making a avian flu joke

Regards

Rajagopal said...

As he is turning in his grave, Ben Franklin wants to tell you that "Those Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Deserve Neither".

Primary Red said...

Oh, please. For all the liberal hyperventilation about civil liberties, US remains the freest nation of all -- other than a handful of terrorists, no one else has much reason to be concerened at all.

Best regards.

nukh said...

rajagopal,
wonder what franklin would make of lincoln, who during the civil war suspended the habeas corpus and allowed summary executions of some of the captured secessionists, and fdr, who not only interned japanese americans, but also allowed summary executions of german and japanese americans - suspected, and i repeat suspected of spying.
yet, both times, civil liberties in america came back with greater vigor and the above presidents went on to become two of the greatest american's ever?

Followers

Blog Archive