Trading rights for freedoms is a bad deal

Re “Weakening rights to save them,” Opinion, Sept. 15

Joshua Muravchik states: “Nor has the abrogation of the rights of terrorism suspects given rise to charges that an innocent individual was being railroaded because of ulterior or capricious motives by any official.” So, Guantanamo Bay is a vacation resort? Suspects have spent up to three years there without legal representation and without being informed of any charges against them. Sounds like railroading to me. Muravchik has no explanation as to how abrogating the rights of terrorists will assist us in this conveniently convoluted war on terror. Muravchik states that “the latitude of free speech, including against the war itself, has not narrowed.” For today, Mr. Muravchik. Can you explain how, with an administration that has broken constitutional and international law, our free speech will be protected not just today but in the future?

TODD GROVES

Santa Monica

*

It is not enough to acknowledge the wrongs done in the name of security; we must also learn from them. Every president who encroached on the rights of citizens has been subject to the harsh judgment of history deeming their actions foul and unnecessary. Though often quoted, people seem unable to appreciate Benjamin Franklin’s words of wisdom that those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither. Perhaps Muravchik should heed these words.

DENISE VEGA

Tustin