A war on terrorism unneccessarily diminishes our civil liberties?
On average, everyone agrees with nonconsensus between 242 voters.
Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
A war on terrorism unneccessarily diminishes our civil liberties
Reasons To Disagree
Look at PATRIOT Act in USA and new anti-terrorism laws in Australia. These new laws pave the way for police-states and false democracy by illegalising dissent. Dissent and revolution are the ways to freedom.
1 November 2005
No - let's be clear on this - it is TERRORISM which unnecessarily diminishes our civil liberties! War is a contained out-and-out conflict with geographical boundaries and some eventual end-date. Terrorism is a creeping scary cowardly and cynical form of agression that can not be predicted therefore no one can feel safe - and safety is a civil liberty.
28 August 2006
A war on terrrorism may, in the short term, mean we have to accept some restriction to our liberties. However, we'll lose the lot if we don't pursue and win this war.
20 September 2006
Reasons To Agree
Legislation targeted at terrorists can be applied at everyone. If you want examples of how hysteria can be translated into law and then in to injustice, look at the abysmal record of the British against the IRA. Special Coursts, special rules of evidence, wrongful imprisonment.
10 February 2007
Terrorism by its very nature cannot be managed by military means. It is a criminal activity not a conflict between nation states
14 July 2007
This is the rub - to defend society with out giving away it's essential element - freedom.
28 October 2007
One of the aims of the "war on terrorism" is to curtail civil liberties. Our leaders want more power.
4 November 2007
Absolutely. How many laws have been rushed through because of a Percieved threat? How many more hurdles need leaping to avoid the risk of terrorism
28 October 2008
Reasons for Remain Neutral
A war on terrorism may reduce some civil liberties (it currently is but doesn't have to). However if terrorism became more rampant then the war would end up enhancing our civil liberties by reducing fear of terrorism (eg large sports events and flying).
A war on terrorism doesn't exist. The "war on terror" is a rhetorical ploy, not a war. Wars are generally between states; sometimes more specifically between groups of people. How can you fight a war against a method of warfare?
You can make your comments once you have voted.