National Security is more important than privacy.

My opponent made this statement, and it really disturbed me. I hope it disturbs most of the voters as well, as it reflects a major problem in Washington. "If it has failed, why keep trying to pull up this argument? There are certain things within the constitution that is witheld strongly, but if we look at the safety of our people; it is worth protecting more than an idea of rights that are broken." There are a lot of things wrong with the statement other than the fact that my opponent misspelled "withheld". First off, if our nation is taken over, what would be the difference if we are not adhering to the values of limited government our nation should be about? If we reject the notion of privacy, as we have, what would be the issue with a nation that has an evil government taking us over if we have the same style of evil government? If our government uses the constitution properly and gives us the privacy we need, we actually have something substantial to defend. If our constitution has failed, then why do you most likely support some of the other parts of it? Do you not support freedom of speech? That's a part of our Bill of Rights in the same way that privacy is. If privacy isn't important, then there is nothing stopping the government from convincing people that gun rights aren't important and that freedom of speech and press both are not important. That would be a dangerous situation, and with voters that do not care about their own rights, it may come soon. Government already uses their excessive power to weaken the religious liberties of Americans. Cake shop owners have had to pay thousands of dollars for using their freedom of speech to not bake a cake for a gay wedding (1). Instances where freedom has been denied to individuals would be even more numerous with an expanded NSA and bulk collection system. We don't know that the government will only use these devices that destroy privacy for just fighting terrorism. If we give the government too much power for national security, they will be tempted to use it against us. Government officials have always aimed to increase their power over us, and diminishing it isn't their forte. Another thing my opponent did that was faulty was their assumption that diving into the percentages and statistics of the desires of the American people is a good way to determine whether it's a good policy. Most American people do not know what the government knows about them. Because of the lack of government transparency, they do not the knowledge they need. Like many American people, I do not have anything to hide. I also do not have anything that I would like to share. The government may use information about me to take advantage of me, and the government is the only entity that can legally use my private information like this because the government is the only entity that can use force to hurt me. I do not trust the government. Countries with big governments have taken advantage of their people in the past, and a government with the power to use my information against is one I do not trust. Also, the notion that terrorism is occurring because of a lack of surveillance is ridiculous! With the Patriot Act and other security measures instituted because of 9/11 have not worked. The FBI even admits that there has been no act of terrorism that has been stopped by the Patriot Act (2). How can we continue using the Patriot Act if it doesn't work? Also, how does President Obama, a member of the Democratic Party which often supports civil liberties, continue to allow these measures to take place even though they are controlled by his branch of government? It's because the violation of privacy rights is the first step towards despotism. Once the government knows what you're up to all the time, they can violate your liberties and rights extensively. Our founding fathers would have gladly joined my side on this issue, as it was one of the main reasons the Revolutionary War was fought. Similar to the way you are arguing, King George used the excuse of terrorism to try and guilty people into rejecting their human rights in pursuit of security. The terrorism of the day was smuggling, and British soldiers used warrantless searches to try and stop these deeds from taking place (3). Obviously, our founding fathers did not like these warrantless searches, and because of the violation of civil liberties and other reasons, they overthrew their corrupt government and made a constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fourth amendment clearly contrasts our current way of business. You state that the safety of our Americans is worth more than the rights of Americans. That is simply false. We use our national security to protect our rights. The biggest of these rights is our liberty and privacy. Liberty and privacy go hand in hand. Liberty in America is the idea that anyone can pursue the lifestyle they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Privacy in America is the idea that we all have a right to be left alone by government unless we did anything wrong. Claiming that giving up these rights in pursuit of safety is as stupid as guarding a safe with a rare jewel and selling that rare jewel to get armed security guards to defend the safe more effectively. It's denying the main purpose of America's existence to have a minuscule improvement of the chance of stopping the next 9/11. It simply isn't worth it. I would like to reassure the voters that our founding fathers were indeed in favor of privacy rights (8). I've said in the past that liberty and privacy do go hand in hand. In fact, privacy is a liberty. It's in the Bill of Rights, and it was a central motivation to the founding fathers. After all, Patrick Henry had the famous statement "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!" (5). This statement shows the attitude of the founders. They would've been on my side, as they were willing to die for these liberties. Now, we choose to throw them away in pursuit of false security. Benjamin Franklin hit it right on the mark when he said this: "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." (6). Franklin could not have been more clear. The freedoms our founders demanded have been slowly removed, and if they were around today, they would want to rebel against the government once more. The fact that the government knows more about us than we want them to is scary because big government already exists. Civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate says the average American commits three felonies a day (7). Obviously, most of these crimes do not hurt anyone. They do not even hurt the government, but because of vague laws that can be interpreted in various ways, we may be accused of these felonies at any time. You probably have committed a felony without knowing. Because of the limited privacy rights we still do have, you have not been convicted. I'm glad for that, and I'm glad I have not been convicted either. My point is that if government knows so much about us, they can theoretically target people they don't like by looking for ways to convict people. This can be easily done through surveillance, wire-tapping, and other data-collecting techniques, and it's quite scary. If the government wanted to find a felony to convict us, they could. They have the power of being the only entity that can use physical force legally to get us to comply. Why should we trust that they won't go after people that are on their "bad list"? We should not trust the government. So, even though I have nothing to hide, I am still concerned about the government knowing my business because the combination of their power and their possession of my private information can be devastating. I do not think I have participated in criminal-like behaviors, but because of how government officials interpret laws to fit their goals, I do not know if I have. The same applies to you and the voters of this debate as well. I hope my argument made you think deeply about the situation. I have chosen the side of liberty, privacy, and freedom, and I also believe the constitution is still worth fighting for. The Revolutionary War was fought and won for a reason, and it was not to make things like they were under King George again. It was to institute a government that didn't fail its people by denying the most important right of all: the right to be left alone. This right is privacy, and it is greatly cherished. I do not want this right taken away because of Washington officials fear-mongering the American people. If that is the case, and if we do lose our privacy and our liberty, then the terrorists have won, and we have lost the reason for America's existence. (1) http://www.foxnews.com... (2) http://www.washingtontimes.com... (3) http://www.juancole.com... (4) http://www.founding.com... (5) http://www.history.org... (6) http://www.goodreads.com... (7) http://www.wsj.com... (8) http://townhall.com...