Resolved: Post 9.11 security measures outweigh the harms to personel freedom

You have a lot of text here, so I won't be quoting too much to save room. Rather, I will respond to your contentions more generally.C1 - AgroterrorismThe government bills don't prove that protection against agroterrorism outweighs the harms to national security, nor do they show that agroterrorism is being effectively prevented. Legislation is notoriously ineffective at preventing the thing it is designed to prevent. For example, there is currently legislation that prevents you from "possession, sale and display of...broad tipped markers" in New York City. This is intended to prevent vandalism, however, there is still vandalism in New York City. There are numerous examples of ineffective legislation, and I see no reason to believe that the agroterrorism bills will be any different. Rather than preventing harmful behavior, the agroterrorism and anti-graffiti legislation only unnecessarily limits the freedom of law-aiding citizens. Those that are willing to vandalise and attack agriculture aren't likely to mind breaking additional laws.This is irrelevant. The debate is over whether security takes precedence over personal liberty, there is nothing at all to do with the economy.C2 - Maslow's hierarchy of needsFood does come first, but you must also note that security is second. We first need the freedom to procure food. For example, there are people that sometimes commute from one country to another for work-related reasons. The focus on security impedes them, as there are many things that can prevent or significantly delay someone from crossing international borders or boarding a plane. This is harmful to the ability to procure food because it may make the person lose their job due to inability to complete their duties. Without a job, you can't purchase food. Food comes first on the hierarchy of needs.C3 - USA PATRIOT Act"and officials have praised the act's value"Of course they have, it has drastically increased their use of surveillance and has made it legal to do so without a warrant, making their job far easier. This is clearly beneficial to law enforcement, but detrimental to the privacy and personal rights of individuals. "These are not trivial successes." No, they are not, however they only show one side of the story. The act is heavily biased against foreign students (among others), forcing them to declare more information than anyone else in order to receive an education in America. This inhibits both intellectual freedom and the economy, because these students will get their degrees and then create innovations and successful businesses. It also made it illegal to support any group on the State Department's terrorist watch list. This is unconstitutional (it violates the right to assemble peacefully), going against the principles on which the nation was founded. As such, it does not increase national security. Rather, it destroys the nation at the most basic of levels. There is no debate over whether security takes precedence over freedom in this instance, because this inherently damages both security of the nation as we know it and personal freedom.My ArgumentThe right to own oneself necessarily entails the right to do as one wishes with one's own body. As it is your body, the government has no right to do anything involving it that you do not consent to. In many cases, the actions and legislation regarding national security (the USA PATRIOT Act in particular) permits and encourages searches without consent or a warrant, and other such actions. This makes it an inherent violation of personal freedom on the most basic of levels.