[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Var,

[ QUOTE ]
please keep in mind that security is not a synonym for freedom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any connection between the two, is there any reason to assume that freedom needs security (or protection).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, certainly. When Israel launches a pre-emptive strike on the surrounding nations that are preparing to wipe it off the map in the immediate future, it would be fair for them to characterize the attack as a defense of their freedom, since they will surely be less free if their opponents succeed in their objective. Are we inherently less free, however, if terrorist attacks are somewhat more likely? I certainly don't see how (even aside from the fact that the Iraq War was so much more likely to increase the frequency of terrorist attacks than to decrease them).

This is a pet peeve of mine. There has traditionally been a debate about the proper balance between security and freedom, and it's an important one to have as both concerns are legitimate, yet are frequently in opposition to each other. The Bush administration, however, has done what it can to sidestep that debate by employing rhetorical slight-of-hand: they characterize their efforts to protect the country from physical harm as "protecting our freedom." It's a really nasty trick, IMO.