Civil Liberties vs. Security - Ends 30th of April
http://www.habboxwiki.com/wiki/image...ransparent.gif
--------------------------------
https://www.techcusa.com/img/security.png
I saw a post on facebook in which someone stated; "a just government would prioritize civil liberties over national security", which ultimately motivated me to make this debate. Now to be honest, I have always been a person who sided for an individual's liberty, and freedom but I know that there are many reasons I can think of when national security could, and should overrule the liberty of an individual but I'll let you all have that discussion in the debate below.
So my question to all of you is;
Should a country prioritize the civil rights of their people over national security?
Many situations have occurred in which countries have used companies, such as apple in one instance, to override civil liberty to help national security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffington Post
A Federal Court has ordered Apple to help the FBI unlock the cellphone of San Bernardino terrorist Sayed Farook. Apple CEO Tim Cook opposed that order, citing concerns over the privacy rights of all Americans.
To bring some argumentative points to this debate, I've posted one from both sides;
Security over Liberty |
Liberty over Security |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debatepedia
There is a large threat to our security. The current level of international tensions is likely to increase, leading to more and more dissatisfaction with American policies, which in turn may result in more terrorist attacks. The nature of contemporary terrorism has become far more frightening with fundamentalists ready to commit suicide, and fears that terror groups are seeking access to biological, chemical and nuclear materials. Old-fashioned terrorism has transformed into high intelligence networks of hard-to-track terrorist cells. It is not possible to curb terrorism without curbing some of the rights of citizens.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Debatepedia
Many evil events in history started with good intentions and few cases of injustice. Allowing even a few abuses as an acceptable side effect of improved security will change the tolerance level of the public and lead to a belief that rights such as the presumption of innocence and habeas corpus (which prevents the state from imprisoning someone without charging them with a crime and then trying them) are a negotiable luxury. Furthermore, abuses of the system are likely to victimise certain minority groups (e.g. Muslims, Arab-Americans) in the same way that Japanese-Americans were persecuted in World War II, something about which Americans are now rightly ashamed.
|
I will rest the debate into your hands. What do you think?
Let the Debate begin!
This Debate will end on 30th April, 2017 at 11:59PM GMT
Quote:
The debate is now up to you! Good contributions will be rewarded with likes and/or royalty points throughout the thread and the member who makes the best contributions throughout the month may give you any of these rewards found here. Also, with contributing towards the Featured Member Debate will get you this reward!