Mark Udall Quotes

Liberty comes only after security.

Liberty and security are often in direct confrontation and must be balanced in a way that protects us without destroying what is worth protecting.

The issue of wiretapping raises the issue of the balance between human liberty and the requirements of national security. I would say that the weight should be on the side of human liberty and that if human liberty is ever to be infringed, the demonstration on the national security side must be overwhelming.

It doesn’t keep us safe and it doesn’t keep us free if we give up our liberties to the government.

If we give up all our privacy rights, have we become any safer?

People must accept that their governments cannot guarantee absolute safety. A measure of insecurity is the price of liberty and democracy. It’s a price worth paying.

You cannot barter security for freedom, or freedom for security.

There is no inverse relationship between freedom and security. Less of one does not lead to more of the other. People with no rights are not safe from terrorist attack.

As for civil liberties, any one who is not vigilant may one day find himself living, if not in a police state, at least in a police city.

Most people want security in this world, not liberty.

The desire for security must be balanced with our regard for liberty.

Only freedom can make security secure.

Without a militia, it is in vain to think that any free government will ever have security or stability.

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.

The civil libertarians among us would rather defend the constitution than protect our nation’s security.

Freedom would be meaningless without security in the home and in the streets.

In a democracy there will always be a tension between security and privacy.

Let's stop trading freedom for the illusion of security.

All have the right to speak, do whatever they want in democracy, but no one will be allowed to destabilise the country or create violence.

Certainly I support the Constitution, and I respect people's privacy, but I also think we need to err on the side of protecting us.

Freedom cannot be trifled with. You cannot surrender it for security unless in a state of war, and then you must guard carefully the methods of so doing.

The combination of the growth of these digital technologies, the ability of the government to conjure up these secret interpretations, plus a very unusual and novel court make for this ever-expanding surveillance state. We so treasure our freedoms; we will regret it if our generation doesn't use this unique time to reform the surveillance laws and make it clear that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We can do both.

If speech always wins, even if it's an atomic secret that's going to be broadcast to our enemies, it's easy to make a decision. Speech always wins. But it doesn't... Liberty doesn't always trump equality or equality always trump liberty.

Even if I were knocked down by one gunshot it wouldn't affect our democracy and I wasn't knocked down and I have great confidence in our democracy and in Taiwan and in the people of Taiwan.

If you have security, you can rebel; if you don't, you hold on to any scraps of it that you have.