Liberty > Security

I agree with your definitions! My arguments will be concerning the United States, as this seems to be where this debate is raging with the most controversy and vigor. C1: Unconstitutional: Violating Civil Liberties in the name of Security Constitutional Role The Constitution authorizes the federal government to perform several specific and enumerated powers. Among these, one of the primary roles of the federal government is to “provide for the common defense [of these states]”. In order to ensure our national defense, the federal government can undertake an assortment of actions, which are prescribed in detail in this document. Presenting the American people with either anarchy or a totalitarian state is a false dichotomy. The Constitution is crafted in a way that establishes a balance between both liberty and security, while emphasizing the former before the latter. The latter sentence can be supported simply by quoting the founders of our country. Patrick Henry once said that, “The Constitution… is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” [1] Liberty means legal constitutional protections against the government, and therefore, we can conclude that the founders intended the Constitution to emphasize liberty over security. Supreme Court The Supreme Court has also ruled in a wide assortment of cases to uphold the resolution. The Supreme Court has the indirect power of judicial review, as established in Marbury v. Madison. Judicial Review allows the Supreme Court to evaluate the acts of the Congress and the Executive Branch and determine if these acts are constitutional. If the acts are not constitutional, they are not legally authorized. [2] I will detail some court decisions. The Supreme Court has ruled that (1) suspects have specific constitutional rights [3] (2) detainees have a right to challenge their detention before a judge or other neutral decision maker [4], and (3) “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. [5] C2: Un-American English writer G.K. Chesterton once famously observed, “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed.” Therefore, America is a unique nation. We are the first country in the world’s history to believe that government power is derived from the just consent of the governed. This is epitomized in the several foundational documents, such as Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, in the latter composition, the logical foundation for America’s government was prescribed, and its main priority was listed as protecting the people’s inherent individual liberties. [6] These arguments contain a crucial implication. If America abandons its logical foundation, and violates the Constitution, we will have lost the contractual base for our government. Consequently, the government will lose all the chains on its power, and we will spiral into a totalitarian state. There would be little check on this power, as the very nature and limits of our government will have been abandoned. People may claim that we would just throw out their Congressmen. This is not likely. Unpopular legislation, such as the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without a trial, has been passed by overwhelming majorities in Congress [7], and yet, incumbents are reelected the vast majority of the time. [8] C3: Unnecessary The idea that the federal government ought to defend security at the expense of our civil liberties is not just flawed, but is unnecessary. True, approximately 3,000 Americans were slaughtered in the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks in 2001. However, is the terrorist threat as a whole grave enough to scrap the very foundation of our nation? Based on the empirical evidence, the statistics indicate that the annual fatality risk from terrorism (in the last five years) is 1 in 20,000,000. [9] For home appliances, the annual fatality risk is 1 in 1,500,000. For bathtub drowning’s, it is 1 in 950,000. [10] Is it logical to spend a trillion dollars [11] and to throw away our civil liberties to be slightly safer from terrorism? If indeed someone were to agree with this claim, we would logically have to spend a trillion dollars and throw away our civil liberties to be slightly safer from bathtubs. The evidence that is available also supports the resolution. A public policy group says that a review of U.S. terrorist arrests shows that the government’s collection of bulk phone records does little to prevent terrorism. [11] Furthermore, a nonprofit think tank analyzed cases involving 225 terrorists recruited by al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups in the U.S. The majority of information was derived from “informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence operations, [not related to the NSA or its associated agencies.” [12] The government’s operations, which have targeted terrorist groups and individuals, has failed to significantly reduce terrorism. There is literally no correlation between the War on Terror and increased safety. [13] Conclusion The nature of America’s government was prescribed by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Our nation is exceptional because we as a people have remained committed to preserving our liberty before our security, and our people support this notion by an overwhelming majority. [14] The Constitution allows a balance between liberty and security, while upholding the former above the latter. There are legal channels through which we can preserve our national defense, and we currently effectively do so. The programs initiated in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been ineffective, extremely costly in the terms of lives lost and the trillion dollars wasted, and the violated liberties that are to show for it. *Sources shown in comments*