This is a deeply anti-American, authoritarian sentiment.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
>This is a deeply anti-American, authoritarian sentiment. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Are you talking about Guantanamo or El Salvador? Because in El Salvador civilians had neither Liberty (not wander the street without fear) nor Safety (been shot).
Also i don't know why El Salvador should use the US or Franklin as a template.
However the US still has the Patriot Act, attacked Iraq and gained no Liberty nor Safety out of it.
To quote you
>public safety is the number one priority for any government
You blanket-declared that any/all governments have it as their number one priority, with no nuance I might add.
Additionally, are you somehow completely unaware that the American government is sending people to that country's worst prison, and that the current president has said he wishes to send American citizens there? This is why American values are at all being referenced here.
Nobody thus far in this conversation has been defending gitmo, the patriot act, or the illegal and unjust invasion of Iraq -- and personally I'm against all three. Yet you're creating false equivalencies, ascribing strawman views to others, and mostly avoiding any nuance to such matters as if the country's underlying corruption and dysfunction which enabled such lawless conditions is any better (which it might genuinely be, but such points ought be evidenced and argued, not declared).
Instead you've transformed it into something approximating: "now el salvador is safe and everyone is happy, there was no need for liberty or human dignity to be respected then or now."
Therein you make yourself out to argue in poor faith.
>You blanket-declared that any/all governments have it as their number one priority, with no nuance I might add.
No nuance needed, there is no single country who flourish when people fear every day for their life. Not being murdered is point number one for living beings...again no nuance needed.
>Additionally, are you somehow completely unaware that the American government is sending people to that country's worst prison
That's a "you" problem, not that of El Salvador. Fix your country without killing a million (for example) Iraqis....and btw stop calling people from other country's "aliens" fkn disgusting!
>Instead you've transformed it into something approximating: "now el salvador is safe and everyone is happy, there was no need for liberty or human dignity to be respected then or now."
Now you try to make me a Fan Boy of Bukele, and to be honest your framing is childish. There was no space for "human dignity" when gangs ruled the country, now it is at least a unwritten letter.
Gotta say, my man, you were the one making blanket proclamations about what governments must care for first. Yet you shy away from defending the principle.
>making blanket proclamations about what governments must care for first
Look, it's simple, safety first, freedom second. A dead man has no freedom, a living man has the possibility of freedom.
Can you explain this quote, because it feels to me like it’s the exact opposite of what standard government practice would dictate?
Everyone in a country with government gives up part of their natural liberties in order to form said government and create a civilized (safer) society. That’s the philosophy of government.
Perhaps there is something to be argued here about “essential” liberty, or “little temporary” safety, but the core idea seems nonsensical, especially in the context of a person not deserving essential properties of life because of a bad choice.
Pre-Bukele, El Salvador had a breakdown in civil society. Focusing just on homicide, it peaked at 106.3 homicides per 100k in 2015. For context, the "crime wave" America experienced in the 90s peaked at 9.82.
The April 24-27 2020 murder spree by gangs killed 77 people in a country of 6.3 million. Again, scaled to America's population, that's killing 4.1k people.
How would you compare torture to civil war AKA mass murder?
I would reject the comparison as a false dichotomy. The world's political systems can't just be bimodal distribution of ineffectual neolibs and self-styled 'strong man' autocracts.
I didn't ask to choose one or the other, therefore there's no dichotomy, therefore there's no false dichotomy.
I don't understand the question either. "Compare" in what way? Both torture and civil war are bad, but they're not similar or analogous.
How would you compare child abuse to famine?