Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Security vs. liberty
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 07:11, 15 September 2009 (edit) Cat22 (Talk | contribs) (→Yes) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 17:43, 15 September 2009 (edit) Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs) (corrections!!!) Next diff → |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | Marry had a little lamb | + | ====Yes=== |
- | Its fleece was white as snow | + | |
- | And everywhere that mary went | + | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |
- | the lamb was sure to go | + | |
- | It followed he to school one day | + | |
- | which was against the rules | + | |
- | it made the children laugh and play | + | |
- | to see the lamb at school | + | |
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since the 1960s and 70s. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events. | There is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since the 1960s and 70s. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events. | ||
Line 36: | Line 31: | ||
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====Yes==== | ====Yes==== | ||
- | '''Bold text'''i love ME'''Bold text''' | ||
Negative cases of security abuse are few. In any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. Therefore it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them. | Negative cases of security abuse are few. In any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. Therefore it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them. | ||
Line 59: | Line 53: | ||
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
- | The great increase in international travel requires faster and more efficient work from customs services all over the world. I farted. Heightened security measures make control procedures slower and cause lots of frustration among travellers, particularly those who are on business trips. I smell really bad, sorry. There have been lots of cases when customs officers were not able to finish check in processes prior to the scheduled time of the departure of an aircraft. As a result, flights are delayed or the clients are left behind. It is, of course, of a great inconvenience for travellers, but also hugely costly for the air companies who are obliged to change the ticket. Mr Bum Chin has a ugly face. Recently many new security devices has been introduced in an attempt to fight with terrorism. Terrorists and smugglers, however, are becoming more and more inventive and knowledgeable about how to carry through the prohibited articles aboard without being detected by those machines. Security persons themselves recognise inefficiency of the devices they have introduced as a method of fighting with terrorism. Have you seen your face today, matbe a paper bag would help. | + | The great increase in international travel requires faster and more efficient work from customs services all over the world. Heightened security measures make control procedures slower and cause lots of frustration among travellers, particularly those who are on business trips. There have been lots of cases when customs officers were not able to finish check in processes prior to the scheduled time of the departure of an aircraft. As a result, flights are delayed or the clients are left behind. It is, of course, of a great inconvenience for travellers, but also hugely costly for the air companies who are obliged to change the ticket. Recently many new security devices has been introduced in an attempt to fight terrorism. Terrorists and smugglers, however, are becoming more and more inventive and knowledgeable about how to carry through the prohibited articles aboard without being detected by those machines. Security persons themselves recognise inefficiently as well as the devices they have introduced as a method of fighting terrorism. |
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
Line 107: | Line 101: | ||
[[Category:Individual rights]] | [[Category:Individual rights]] | ||
[[Category:Peace Tournament]] | [[Category:Peace Tournament]] | ||
+ | [[Category:Underdeveloped debates]] |
Revision as of 17:43, 15 September 2009
Is it acceptable to sacrifice some individual liberties in the interest of security? |
Argument #1 | |
=Yes |
NoThere is not enough evidence to show that terrorism has evolved into something more threatening since the 1960s and 70s. Governments are likely to take advantage of anti-terrorist mania and seize the moment to strengthen their regimes. Modern government bodies fighting terrorism are sophisticated enough to counteract terrorism with little use of 'draconian' measures. It is not acceptable to curb citizen rights because of isolated events. |
Argument #2 | |
YesNegative cases of security abuse are few. In any wide-scale attempt to fight terrorism there are bound to be a few cases of abuse of security measures. Therefore it is not a good idea to shut down all security measures under a pretext that they violate rights. The majority of the measures are intended to safeguard those civil liberties instead of abusing them. |
NoMany 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. |
Argument #3 | |
NoIf the US, the example-setting country of cherished civil liberties, allows the loss of its liberties to terrorism, it will show that terrorists have succeeded in forcing us to change our way of life. Lots of apparently minor measures can quickly add up to a significant loss of liberty. Other countries will take their cue from the US and use security as an excuse for a crackdown on political opposition movements and minority groups (examples of this can be found in Russia, China, Hong Kong, India, Liberia and the Central Asian republics). Rights mean nothing if they are ignored and eroded as soon as hard cases come along. | |
Argument #4 | |
YesIt is possible to keep a balance between international travel facilitation and security maintenance by introducing electronic means of customs control. Reinforced cockpit doors, sky marshals, bomb-detection machines, and information technology such as positive bag matching systems are steps in the right direction, as history proves. In September 1970 the hijack of El Al flight 217, a Boeing 707 flying from Amsterdam to New York, failed: the aircraft had a re-enforced cockpit door, and armed sky marshals on board were able to thwart the terrorists. More recently in September 2002 an attempted hijack of a Saudi airliner flying from Sudan was similarly prevented by armed security officers on board. |
NoThe great increase in international travel requires faster and more efficient work from customs services all over the world. Heightened security measures make control procedures slower and cause lots of frustration among travellers, particularly those who are on business trips. There have been lots of cases when customs officers were not able to finish check in processes prior to the scheduled time of the departure of an aircraft. As a result, flights are delayed or the clients are left behind. It is, of course, of a great inconvenience for travellers, but also hugely costly for the air companies who are obliged to change the ticket. Recently many new security devices has been introduced in an attempt to fight terrorism. Terrorists and smugglers, however, are becoming more and more inventive and knowledgeable about how to carry through the prohibited articles aboard without being detected by those machines. Security persons themselves recognise inefficiently as well as the devices they have introduced as a method of fighting terrorism. |
Argument #5 | |
YesRandom searches that have caused so much frustration among travellers are not random in fact. People labelled with 'S' (suspicious passenger) on their ticket are those who are subjected to a thorough search. The software that runs on the airline's reservation system, called Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System (CAPPS), selects passengers whose carry-on and checked bags will require additional security screening. CAPPS also selects passengers at random, which helps to ensure passengers' civil liberties by guaranteeing that no individual or group of individuals is automatically targeted from the selection process. |
NoFruitless random searches of elderly women, toddlers, and uniformed airline pilots have become mainstream in U.S. airports as more and more innocent passengers are treated like suspects rather than customers. Some of the red flags for CAPPS system are person’s last name; methods of payment (tickets paid in cash are highly suspect); whether a rental car is waiting. Those criteria that one can find online are very vague, do not allow the targeting of real suspects but harass many. |
Argument #6 | |
Yesi love you, contact me at iloveedwardcullen576845737@hotmail.com NoGovernments are likely to use terror as a convenient excuse for tightening laws and restricting freedoms in order to crack down in areas such as immigration, drug smuggling, fraud, etc, with insufficient public debate. Such an erosion of liberties has a long-term impact and, in practice, is unlikely ever to be reversed as it is not the nature of state bureaucracies ever to give up power. Democratic mandates are insufficient reason to erode liberties; a key purpose of civil liberties is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. | |
See alsoExternal links
Books
|