Right to Individual Privacy be valued above the National Security

Fundamental Rights Contention 1: National security should not be over-valued. Yes, NOTHING should be OVER-VALUED, including privacy. To over-value privacy means that the government cannot access private records even of persons who are suspected (with good evidence making such suspicion warrented) of planned terrorist activity. So national security being over-valued doesn"t mean it should be valued less than privacy, or vice versa. Pro admits that national security "protects the lives of citizens and even allows the nation to continue its existence," which one would think that the right to life itself is more important than the right to individual privacy because without life there can be no privacy. Without privacy one can still have life. And people can live meaningful lives unaware and to a large extent unaffected by the surveillance of government. Yes, national security can lead to tyranny, IF ABUSED (or taken to far). But this debate isn"t about if it should be abused, but if it should be valued above individual privacy when these two conflict. Individual privacy can also lead successful terrorist attacks on a nation when government is unable to access vital information on potential threats. The point is that anything can be abused. People use to much salt or sugar and get health problems, that doesn"t mean we should not value salt and sugar or use them at all; the same is true for national security. But this holds true for democracy, because unbounded freedom, choice without limits equals chaos; there needs to be restrictions. So anything can lead to bad consequences. Religion can lead to bad consequences, so can philosophy. So showing something can have bad effects when misused doesn"t show it is worth less than privacy or has no positive effects at all. Just imagine America with no national security, no armed forces, no police, no intelligence gathering, completely open to attack. Then imagine the nation with all these things but no privacy. In which one would you rather live? No the first one, because you would not be able to live in that one at all " you"d be dead. As George Washington said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." (http://www.brainyquote.com...... accessed February 28, 2014) This is a red herring. I"m not arguing that we should not have freedom of speech. The government"s ability to find out what you said doesn"t stop you from saying it to whom you choose. Once you are not saying anything that is against the law, such as engaging in defamation of character, or treason, what do you have to fear? Pro says "the press was largely responsible for uncovering the corruption of the Nixon administration," so they had the right to pry into Nixon"s affairs to find out if he was doing evil, right? Why then should not government have the same right to spy on the people to determine who else is up to greater evil, such as a planned genocide? And what is the fear anyway of national security? What do you fear government will do with your secret information? Pro also has not actually shown that national security leads to tyranny. He merely gave examples of tyranny in countries that had national security, but we can also find examples of tyranny by persons who allow privacy, does that show the privacy is responsible? Pro has to show how one caused the other. How did government eavesdropping lead to Nixon"s corruption? And does it follow that the act of finding out people"s personal information automatically leads to using this information for bad purposes? Parents tend of have personal information on their children, does this lead them to corruption? Contention 2: The Right to Free Speech leads to Individual Privacy. Having the right to say what you want does not mean 1) that you have the right to say things you should be ashamed of that would lead government to want to take action against you, such as leaking state secrets, defamation of character, or spreading propaganda without facts to back it up; or that 2) government has no right to know what you said. Knowing what a person has said does not take away their right to say it. I challenge Pro to explain to me how government recording this debate right now takes away my right to engage in it! If you are not saying anything illegal, why fear government surveillance of it? It"s like a child who wants privacy in his room from his parents. If he has nothing to hide, why shouldn"t his parents have the right to check his room to make sure he is walking the straight and narrow? Contention 3: Overreaching Government leads to destruction of our rights. Application: The Patriot Act. 1. "Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation." Good, because librarians have no business giving out information related to government obtaining information during a criminal investigation such as a terrorist threat. Leaking such to the wrong persons could alert terrorists that government is onto them. Just imagine if a terrorist escaped because a librarian told one of his spies that government had obtained information on him! 2. See if our government does searches without a warrant, it is a violation of our constitution the 4th Amendment "Search and Seizure." Which means the 4th amendment needs revision, because not all terrorists will have a record in the system before they plant a bomb. Sometimes the only trace of their intentions is their actual phone records, and internet messages. Not every single terrorist is a prior suspect on record, so the only way to prevent terrorism before it happens is to keep tabs on everybody. You should be willing to pay that price to be safe. Its worth it. I await my opponents rebuttal to my arguments.