We shouldn't waste our time observing "rights" and "liberties" when fighting terrorism

First, let me just say I'm not "supposed" to be arguing the abolition of rights. I stand by my opening statement which directly asserts reasonability. The topic was meant to be instigatory. 1)The Constitutionality Question Your rights argument is grounded in the Constitution, which we can both agree is good. My argument proves that both civil liberties and the governments duty to protect its people are represented there. This serves to place the arguments on equal ground. You argue as if I am against the Constitution, my argument points out that both sides of the debate satisfy constitutionality. As for your argument of a government of the people, I don't know how this is in any way responsive. Still, you provide me with no evidence that most people dislike the patriot act and furthermore, your arguments are still trying to function in this abstract, idealist realm. All of these "in theory" arguments are completely non-responsive as I am trying to draw the distinction between what should ideally happen and what should realistically happen. Ideally, I agree, we should be safe and have all of our rights. That would be awesome, but that is not the case. 2) The Right to Life Your whole constitution argument implodes on itself. Every fourth grader can tell you the essential rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we are going to have a discussion on fundamental princples you are clearly on the wrong side of the fence here. If I do not have the right to live, what is stopping something/someone from taking it from me on a whim? Why is it so heavily gaurded? I, as well as your constitutional principles arguments, would both say it is most important. You contradict yourself here. This means that the right to be safe and alive would outweigh any kind of privacy (or other) rights you would claim. 3) The Real World Correlary Your argument is that a lack of press coverage and our ignorance makes the abuse of our rights possible. Again, you fail to give me any real world ground where this has ACTUALLY happened. So, your argument seems to function on the possibility of my rights being violated. From a realistic standpoint, doesn't this function on the same level as the U.S. possibly being attacked? Also, you ignore my argument that the Patriot Act's effects are exagerrated and do, in fact require these warrants. Section 21 of the PA states that feds are required to appeal to a survellience court after serving the warrant. The inaction of the PA maintains the governments need for warrants, despite popular opinion. 4) Terrorists win when... You argue terrorists try to spread fear. I would say the attacks themselves do this rather than the actions we take to step up security. Increased security decreases fear, as people feel safer. This is common logic. You argue that terrorists are not trying to conquer us, but lower our lifestyle and freedoms. I would agree to a point. They are trying to KILL us. Terrorist organizations are not concerned about wire-tapping and survellience on soccer moms. They want to kill us. That much is obvious. The only response is to protect ourselves. Here, note the "drastically" distinction. Your argument only functions when our lifestyle and freedoms are changed. As per your above arguments we are ignorant to these apparently devastating changes, therefore our lifestyle remains the same. 5) Popularity vs. Correct Again, you make this "argument of the people" claim. I am not sure how this is true or relevant as I explained above. The "supposed to" stuff, I explained at the top. The only real response on this point is that I don't provide a brink for reasonability. Reasonable is defined as moderate or not excessive (dictionary.com). This is exactly why I made the distinction above. My reasonability claim accesses all of the positive benefits of safety without threatening our essential or realistically important liberties. The pure nature of "reasonable means" automatically finds itself in a balance between rights and safety as it is 'not exceeding' the impairment of rights and allows us to be safer. 6)Sacrifice status quo/slippery slope I give two unanswered reasons as to why rights interference will not increase. At some point, the ignorance you say we have will cease to exist if it gets severe enough, and the natural checks and balances of our government will stop anything important from being violated. Also, the use of the term reasonable would ensure this doesn't happen. So, all of your "10 years from now" arguments cease to be relevant. After this there are a couple of key points to note. First, you reassert the slippery slope argument (see above) and then you state that violating our constitutional rights is bad. I agree. Violating the constitution is bad. But, there are instances in which the constitution conflicts. Refer to point 1 here. The duty to protect is also in the constitution. A failure to do that would violate it as well. At the very least these arguments function on the same level. As both instances violate the constitution, neither of us can really make that claim. Next, your internment camp example. Here again, the question of drastic vs. reasonable comes into play. Obviously, internment camps and RACIAL profiling are excessive. Nowhere does racial profiling, or rounding up middle-eastern americans come into play in my argument. Profiling, sure. I do believe that a 90-year-old woman or a 6-year-old girl does not have anywhere near the chance to commit a terrorist attack. This does not make me, or the government, a racist. In fact, many government officials have stated that middle-eastern americans should not be viewed as terrorists. We have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11, as opposed to other countries that have and do not have the measures in place that we do. The government has issued reports on the VAST number of attacks halted since 9/11. At least part of this is due to our increased security. As for the Pakistani analogy, refer to my numerous answers above on the now notorious slippery slope. Some important things to note: My arguments help to ensure the CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED right to life, which is valued above all other rights. If there is no life, there are no other rights. Second, these "constitutional rights" claims function on the same level as the government's duty to protect its citizens. This nulls any claim that they would be superior to increased safety. Next, the real world contradiction. You claim on one hand that these violations are killing our way of life, but on the other that we are ignorant to them, if they are even there. This contradiction is important because either we are ignorant, and there is no reason would shouldn't sacrifice them, or they are killing our way of life, which holds no realistic weight as you have provided me with no evidence that the PA or anything else has drastically effected anyone. Also, you fail to refute the fact that the PA does call for warrants and does not do the things you claim it does. Finally, the notion of reasonability allows me to access all of the positives of security without commiting these terrible rights violations.