When a country is at war such as the current war on terrorism, should citizens accept substantially less rights as a permissible trade-off for greater security? Citizens should never give up their rights. That one statement should clarify this whole question. Men and women of this country are protected by the armed forces and local, regional, and national security. Yet, if their rights are compromised, why would they need this protection? The protection these people are getting is the security of their rights. It is ridiculous to act like people are receiving protection when they are actually only losing their rights, they don't gain protection by losing their rights that's ludicrous.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin) This was said in the time of war, I think that Franklin knew what he was talking about.
During this time there were men hiding out, and generals were turning their backs and there was a lot of corruption. This quote explains the whole problem. There should not be a person in this country that would sacrifice their rights to have more security, it just does not make any sense.
To further my argument, the patriot act passed on 2001 after September 11, 2001 was a bill that was pretty much passed overnight. It was passed to cover the NSA, FBI, and other agencies. The NSA was wire tapping and reading personal messages, looking for terrorists and other threats. The ex post facto law kept the NSA safe after the Patriot Act was passed and the NSA was caught wire tapping citizens of their own country.
We, as citizens gave up our rights for more security when the Patriot Act was passed. After a few years of the...