The right of privacy should never be violated because it's the law and the law should never be broken no matter what. Civil liberties is more important than security no matter what. For example, the "Patriot Act" was signed by George W. Bush to protect the US by looking at personal records and using surveillance cameras to spy, which is a direct violation to the freedom of privacy.
Our civil liberties should never be violated for any reason. These are guarantees given to us by the government which are constantly violated by those we look to protect them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I don't understand why security is so important when terrorism has only kills 49 people a year. Even ebola kills more! Influenza kills about 500,000 people a year, and I don't even know how many obesity and heart disease kills in america. The amount that guns and terrorists kill is hugely meager compared to these leading causes, so why must we supress ourselves out of irrational fear? Besides, all the wars we have fought in the last century, besides ww1 and ww2, were all offensive wars to either gain recourses (Examples: The 10 year ware are currently fighting in iraq) or wars to protect other countries. In fact, 9/11 we brought upon ourselves by supporting tyranical governments in the mid east so we can have access to their recourses. Even with our pointless warring, the government has also started to spy on all of us and order drone strikes on people who might be "Terrorists". In fact, they can put you on a no-fly list if you don't like the president! Free nation; yeah right.
I believe civil liberties are far more important than security. I think this has become evident in the United States where the government uses security as an excuse for every questionable act they follow through on. I think it is wise to protect civil liberties rather than try to heighten security in ways that have not even been proven useful.
This is going to exasperate some people, but I do believe in the old adage that you know a compromise is successful when both parties walk away from the table unhappy. Some civil liberties can be sacrificed for security, and some things that we consider requirements for security can be discarded to preserve liberty. It's a never ending balancing act.
I would rather be protected then be shot because of some low life terrorist. We all need to take a few steps back and look at the bigger picture. I'm almost positive all of you Liberty voters would want to be protected from a terrorist if the government could help it. I'm not saying how the government proceeds to do that is right because we all should have our privacy but it is 100% worth it if they can stop people from doing horrible things to many innocent people.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that all men are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These three natural rights are not in a random order. One must preserve life even if it means some restriction on liberty and one must preserve liberty even if it means some are unhappy. When security measures aim to protect our right to live, they are justified in curtailing liberty, but simply stating that is their intention is not sufficient proof that a measure is actually saving lives in exchange for the liberties removed. Any measure taken must prove that lives are saved before it can justify the curtailing of our liberty.
No, security is more important than civil liberties, but only just slightly. Civil liberties are enjoyed because only because of the strong outreach of security. It is the concept of giving up a little freedom to raise security to keep all of the other freedoms people enjoy without thinking about it. Having security is what gives citizens the ability to grab a hold of their civil liberties.
People are entitled to rights but people can't have rights if there is no security. Security needs to be set up first before liberties can be gained by the people, and a lot of security is still unfullfilled in the world - even if they are in parts of it.