NEWS: Homeland Intelligence Chief: "We Have to Abridge Individual Rights"

POLITICS: Homeland Intelligence Chief: "We Have to Abridge Individual Rights"

A chilling report from Congressional Quarterly ought to throw some gasoline on the liberty vs. security debate.

Hughes apparently made these previously unreported remarks at a March 2003 Harvard University forum on “Future Conditions: The Character and Conduct of War, 2010 and 2020.”

It seems clear that the forum should have been dubbed "1984: We're Behind Schedule."

Link via Tapped.

We really need to start executing these fuckers for treason.

Funny, I imagine they're thinking the same thing about you.

Well I feel more secure. Besides keeping track of my civil liberties was such a chore; it's nice to no that I won't have to do that any more.

funny that the land of the free seems to be the worst off from all of this.

ah fuck it, the bird flu's going to have it's way with us anyway

Fuck that guy square in his earhole.

This country's had far graver threats to us in the past without rsorting to abridging the people's rights as severely as we have done since 9/11.

Cold War, anyone? M.A.D.?

security and freedom do not go hand in hand...the same is true for all things...choose one and stop bitching when somebody makes a distinction between the two.

Furthermore, there is a difference between Individual rights and, say, the Bill of Rights.

It is unfortunate however that individual rights often mesh with rights such as free speech...wiretaps for instance...yes...I would say that is an invididual right I would not like abridged...what I do in my home is my business, even if that includes plotting against the government or economic organizations...The same goes for other rights...my right to a fair trial could easily be infrigned upon due to the suspension of other "Individual rights"

anyway...my point is that...yeah, it sucks...but that's the way the world works...that's the way it has been since ancient times...you give up some of your freedom for the protection afforded by others...we (Americans) are lucky to live in a place where we get the Walmart deal out of that...We sell security wholesale (and much like wholesale...usually at the great expense of others and often it's a quite generic form of security)

I have no idea what sort of soapbox that was...but anyway, back to your regularly scheduled irony and sarcasm.

Would you like a side order of repression with your police state?

Wow, I need to high-tail it back to Canada.

Gen. Hughes wasn't saying he thought any of this was a good idea. He was pointing out that if you want a certain level of security you have to take certain steps.

Unfortunately, once things work their way through the beauracratic process we end up giving up privacy and rights, with no real increase in security. Some things give a sense of increased security and may give an illusory appearance of security, but give very little real increase in security.

Example -- Federalizing security screeners at airports. Sounds like a great idea! Lets actually complete the background checks to keep convicted felons from working as screeners and get some effective training in place. Sounds like a great idea, right?

Result -- some congress-critter throws a hissy fit about putting "good hard-working americans out of jobs" and Voila! The requirement that they have to have a high school diploma - poof! gone! (if they've been working at least one year. Background checks? The beauracracy is suddenly so overwhelmed they won't get them done for another year. Yes, we have the same dolts working the checkpoints, just in different uniforms.

Sheez, these folks missed the knife on my keychain TWICE before I realized it was still on there and chucked it in a trashcan in a bathroom after passing through security.

Security without liberty is tyranny. I'm starting to wonder why I'm so upset about the trade-off when it looks as though an increasing majority of US citizens wants to do little more than stand idly by and exchange their freedoms for propaganda and some false sense of security...

He said we have to abridge individual liberties if we want to prevent terrorist attacks. Preventing terrorist attacks is his job.

It's not that I disagree witht he idea that liberties will have to be trampled on in order to make America completely safe. It's just that I don't see that it's worth it.

smartest thing I have heard on here in a while, its a shame its true...

Amen.

I agree with you. I think its more a case of individuals taking responsibility for their own security though. If someone expects a nation-state to provide them with perfect protection while you remain a mindless sheep then you definitely have to give up most/all of your individual rights.

If, on the other hand, you are will to take personal responsibility and accountability to be a part of the solution than it can be done with less erosion of said rights. We could also take the novel step of enforcing the laws we already have. Unfortunately, it costs less to pass a law and hold a press conference to announce it; than it does to fund actual enforcement of said law....

I would like to know more of the context this was said in.

I have read reports where this has been talked about AFTER an attack to maintain civility after an attack - so a city doesnt fall into chaos. And I could only see this as an extreme measure. I doubt this was talked about in any other way.

There is no such thing as being completely safe. When someone wants to pull something off badly enough, they'll find a way to do it. THAT'S the way the world works.

Remember that one nation's (or philosophy's) "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter." Thus, the only way to put an end to "terrorism" is to create more justice in the world, and that, unfortunately is the US's weakest point.

The US has become the Wal-mart of the world, working towards serving only its own means while pushing everyone else down.

Now all of the sudden its prices are rising too. Not only has it screwed over everyone else (especially our biggest competitors) in the process of becoming the world's only superpower, but it's reneging on our own statutes of liberty and freedom that it purports to be the reason it's better than all the "evil" nations it seeks to limit or conquer.

Unfortunately, when it comes to prices, the general population is keen to note discrepancy; but when it comes to politics and the grand scheme of things, that same population suddenly acts ignorant.

Here is the actual transcript of what Gen Hughes said.

He has a lot of interesting things to say. It seems like shades of Gen VanRiper's exercises in the past, when his ideas where ignored as being too "problematic." For example, Gen Hughes states that he developed an exercise for the CIA about having a nuke enter Miami and the CIA stated it that it was "too dangerous" to use.

Thanks. I am heading out to the pub right now so I will have to check that out after I have a few pints with my friends.

"Those that would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Word.

i'm not sure what you have said about "individual rights" v. "the bill of rights" makes any sense... at all... individual rights and the bill of rights are one and the same. they were put into the constitution because there was no explicit grant of individual rights elsewhere in the document. the articles deal with distribution of power among the several state and the national govt., and then further break down the powers of the 3 branches of the federal govt. some drafters felt that the bill of rights was so inherently obvious that they did not need to be included, while others knew that they had to be in there to avoid tyranny.

"tyranny" being the very important concept, which i assume we all get the gist of in the present context.

the constitution and its grant of rights are not just "mere surplussage" and it is not a document that can be discarded when it isn't convenient. this includes when our sense of security is allegedly in grave peril.

i, for one, am willing to put up with minor to greatly incovenient intrusions into my rights as long as the govt. interest involved is compelling and its actions are narrowly focused on acheiving its compelling interest. however, much of what we have seen the govt. doing recently is done purely in the name of its plenary power - in that it doesn't feel compelled to justify itself becuase it knows best. we've seen in the past (chinese exclusion laws, japanese internment during WWII, and the FBI's COINTELPRO programs to name a few) that the govt. will intrude without justification whenever it gets a chance. i don't think it should "just work that way becuase it always has," becuase once liberty has been infringed too much, what is the point of the security to defend it?

just the way i see it, anyway.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin, 1759