Security v Liberty

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin

I was reminded about this quote last week in relation to our war against terrorism. It sparked a discussion of whether the Patriot Act, wire-tapping, and other security measures go too far in protecting our freedoms. In essence, where do we draw the line in trading individual liberty for national security?

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared the wire-tapping program as in violation of the first and fourth amendments, ruling that the government would need warrants to conduct such wire-tappings. This ruling comes just after 23 terrorists, who were plotting another terror act in the air, were arrested in the UK. Their arrest is attributed to the tracing of phone calls, including calls the US government was monitoring.

Bush is basically in a no-win situation here. He is blasted by his opponents for violating individual rights on this issue; however, if the program was not in place and the terrorists had struck again, Bush would have been blasted by those same opponents for not doing enough to thwart terror. Aargh - the frustration of everything in this country being so political and partisan! (Joe Lieberman even is too conservative now - did you see where Kerry compares Lieberman to Dick Cheney?) So what to do?

When I get on an airplane, I gladly do whatever is asked of me to go through security. Take off my shoes? No problem. Check my bag? Go ahead. If that is what it takes to make the plane safe, I am fine with that. In fact, I would be fine with not being allowed to bring any electronics or carry-on bags in the plane. I choose security over privacy or comfort here.

As far as wire-tapping goes, if anyone is listening to my phone calls, they must have the most boring job in the world. The fact is, the government is only listening to calls of suspected dangerous people. They are not concerned with my phone call about what time I'll be home, or what the kids did today, etc.

But where is the line we draw? Ben Franklin may be right in his quote; however, he didn't live in the 21st century. He was remembering British troops coming into Americans' homes. He was fearing a rebirth of a monarchy or a state established church. And besides, as wonderful as our founding fathers were, they are sometimes wrong (ie, slavery, 3/5 compromise). I am comfortable with what the current surveillance law authorizes, even though I realize that once the government controls an element of power, it does not relinquish it willingly.

Ah, but here is the great thing about our constitution - and where the founders were brilliant. We have checks on the branches of government, and a judge in this case has made her ruling, a ruling which will now be appealed and argued again. And if it is still ruled unconstitutional, then the Congress can implement a new plan, or the people can demand as much. I am thankful that our government does sometimes make rulings like this, it enables our government to reason through what is right and wrong, giving us security that if one day the government goes too far, there will hopefully be checks in place to protect our essential liberties.

In this case, our freedom of speech is not violated. We are not punished for what we say, but rather only if we are planning a terrorist act. Isn't that what we want? Do we want to be hit again? I don't think so. And I will be surprised if a majority of Americans, after hearing the facts, would oppose wire-tapping of suspected terrorists or criminals. If we are not safe, we have no liberties to truly exercise.

Anyway, if we are so concerned with privacy in this country, then why have blogs, myspace, and personal web pages become so popular?