Ever since 2001 this topic has been popping up all over the news. What is more important: our rights as citizens of the United States, or the security of our nation from terrorists and all who mean us harm. On one side, we are guaranteed certain rights by our constitution and by its Bill of Rights. Such as the writ of habeas corpus, the right to not be searched without a warrant, freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to bear arms. Before I continue, let me explain that many people do not understand the writ of habeas corpus. The Latin words roughly translate to: you have the body". The actually right of habeas corpus means that you can demand to be put before a court if you believe that the government/prison has no right to hold you. But if you read where it is stated in the constitution in Article 1, Section 9 it states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." There has been some talk of how this right is being infringed upon by our government and its war on terrorism. However, isn't threat of massive terrorist attacks a major problem to our public safety? But back to the main point. Should these rights be held above our need for public safety. Both sides of the argument have made good points. We are guaranteed rights. Should our government change the laws because of crisis situations? Could we keep all of our rights and still ensure our national security? What do you guys think?
Considering that there are most likely people in the United States who are part of international terrorist plots, including links to Al-Qaida, etc, I have no problem with the government digging a little deeper than most of us might be comfortable with at first glance. What I mean is if the government needs to read a few emails, listen to a few phone calls, view internet history logs, then so be it. Sure it's annoying knowing that "big brother" might be watching, but, think of the alternative. Al-Qaida could be watching too. And if they are, or if anybody with similar intentions is watching, plotting, hiding, or doing anything behind closed doors that could lead to attacks on US soil such as 911, I say the government has a responsibility to try to thwart these people before they have a chance to carry through with terrorist attacks again.
See, I don't agree with any monitoring. While I do agree that there may be no other way to find out who's a terrorist or not, or who is planning to shoot president Bush... it's just not part of who we are. There has to be a way to maintain our privacy and still hunt down all of the bad guys/girls in the world. Isn't that why we have the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and the entire DoD?
I guess I was assuming that it would be the higher level, more secretive government branches such as the FBI, CIA, etc that would be doing the monitoring. I'm not really for local police departments spying on people if that's what you mean. I figure I'd at least like there to be a good several levels of security on the people who would be getting any of this information.
Basically, I don't want the FBI knocking on my door because of that Nirvana album I downloaded last night, or the ATF because I keep an old unregistered revolver that my grandfather made with his bare hands, all because of some guy listening to my phone conversation and thinking that I was funding terrorist activities.
