|
The debate would be better served if we put aside the sloganeering, electioneering, paranoia, nationalism, and fear mongering (from both sides). If your basic tenet is "the government is bent on diabolical world domination" or "kill those foreigners and let God sort 'em out," we're unlikely to get anywhere constructive.
There are fundamental tradeoffs between freedom and security and we are yet to have a serious debate about them. On one hand, we have "inalienable" rights and should reactively question and resist any infringement. On the other hand, our rights are not absolute despite whatever rhetorical flourishes we've come to believe. We routinely accept reasonable infringements for the sake of common sense and the greater good.
I'm inclined towards the side of greater freedom, but I'm also willing to accept another terrorist attack as plausible and unpreventable, but bearable.
|