Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
Nothing causes a citizen to forfit his rights. It doesn't matter what name you give him he still deserves it.
|
Rekna, that's hitting the nail on the head. Rights are rights, regardless.
It's not about 'owing' the terrorists anything. It's more what we 'owe' ourselves, and that is to maintain the government's responsibility to respect our rights. When we grant the government the power to ignore our rights, we undermine our own liberty.
This nation's government was built on the premise that it was incumbent upon the government to respect the rights of the citizens. Our founders understood that to do so meant restricting the government's power, and not making it okay to respect rights unevenly, but instead enshrining those rights and protections in the Constitution.
On a seperate note, I would reject the notion that terrorists are more dangerous to us than 'normal' criminals. Far more people are killed by 'normal' criminals than by terrorists. We have lost less than 4,000 between Oklahoma and 9-11, but how many in the last decade have been killed by guns, drugs, and domestic violence? Never mind drunk drivers and all kinds of other criminals who endanger us. The idea that terrorists are more dangerous is an illusion not unlike the illusion that leads so many to fear flying despite the fact that its the safest method of transportation going. The nature of terrorist acts make them stick in our heads, and the motivations behind them enhance the fear factor, while murders, ODs, drunk drivers, and drive-bys are mundane, explicable, and able to be written off as part of the landscape.