Nothing new here. To an extent, this would be like saying the seatbelt law limits my freedom to drive free of physical restriction and forces me to do something. Oh yea, it also is shown to saves lives. This idea of the USA being free is really overblown. We could all speculate and connect dots when no connection existis, but people like ex-rep James Traficant can't be 100% off the mark. Didn't Hillary Clinton have over 900 FBI files in her office, or her lawyer's office...who then decided to shoot "himself"? You think that be being able to walk to the local mall makes you free? Well, there have been cameras in shopping centers way before 9/11 and we have been OK with it, some even inside dressing rooms. You think taking a run before work makes you free? Well, some upscale neighborhoods don't allow jogging and think twice about it if you are a black man in America. While I would be the first to admit that the govt does some crazy things in the name of safety and might overreact, but this works both ways. If not for media hype and public support, many of these issues would never leave committee and will remain as typical soundbites so voters will know and remember who they should reward come November. Again, the USA shows its true colors...all style and no substance.
That of course assumes the parallel that anything that's been done since 9/11 actually makes us any safer.
Point taken, but this is like judging a moral victory in a loss. Until we get hit again, and most would agree that we will be hit again, we wouldn't, couldn't and probably shouldn't know what our vast agencies have been doing to save us. It makes for good fiction and Hollywood movies to see just how close we come to destruction while in reality it is not as glamorous or even makes the evening news. In the very least, the govt does have a role in making the nation feel safe, even if it is for political self-preservation. Photo op anyone? Hey, just remember how some played Monday morning quarterback after 9/11. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It takes courage to make tough decisions especially when history will not be so kind.
I saw a cartoon last weekend. It showed two people chained to a wall in a dungeon. One was saying to the other, "Well, you have to expect some loss of freedom in order to gain security."
I guess Ken Starr was in on the conspiracy? Or do the ill-advised quotation marks mean you think Vince Foster was a transsexual?
Personbally, I believe the whole "Freedom for Safety" thing is a red herring. The real issue should be "How do we have freedom AND security." As for seatbelt laws "prooving" that Americ is not free, America is a republican democracy. Hence, the people, acting through elected representatives, decide. While we can be all cynical about it and say that the Congress members and governors and presidents only act for themselves, I believe in that system and that it is the best there is. As a citizen you have a RESPONSIBILITY to spend some time learning about the issues and finding ways to make your concerns felt. And in democracy, you must realize that sometimes you are on the losing end of an issue. You could structure a system whereby there are no rules. Anarchy is in some ways the perfect freedom, but such as system would not last long.
There is a difference. Seatbelts are proven to save lives, and are directly involved with state and federal medical and highway patrol costs, which would be reduced if there were fewer injuries. There is no proof of anyone being saved by draconian wire-tapping and citizen surveillance laws. Don't forget that a large number of these were introduced by Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing. It didn't help us a lot, did it?