Liberty vs. Security

It was reported in the NY Times today that President Bush has allowed the NSA to spy on certain US Citizens and others within the United States, (reading emails and listening to phone calls) without getting a warrant.

Several officials said the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program, the officials said. But they said most people targeted for N.S.A. monitoring have never been charged with a crime, including an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden.

At what price are Americans willing to trade liberty for security? As Franklin once said "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

I've had people make the argument that if the Government knew there were a nuclear device planted in a city that the suspension of civil liberties would be warranted. But would it? At what number of people at risk do we allow the suspension of civil liberties? One, five hundred a million?

I'm of the mindset that it's never ok for the government to suspend civil liberties. It's much too easy for the target group to move from being Islamo-facisits to people with red hair and freckles or maybe bloggers that say the wrong thing or maybe just people that are overheard at a bar.

I say no to the wanton disregard of the constitution by the Federal and State government. No matter what the threat, the government must act to protect every citizens rights regardless of the consequences.