In the reading selection, “Liberty vs. Security: An Old Debate Renewed in the Age of Terror,” David Haynes discusses the government’s efforts, specifically the National Security Agency (NSA) to continue snooping into American’s phone records and conversations under the pretext of national security. The author argues that the NSA had been carrying out an extensive eavesdropping program two years before Edward Snowden informed the public about the existence of such activities. The NSA’s quest to continue tapping into Americans’ phone conversations has backing from the Senate, with one wing supporting it, while the other protesting the underlying illegalities. However, on the one hand, such a massive collection of personal data infringes people’s right to privacy under the US Constitution. On the other hand, given the constant threat of terrorism, especially after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, some elements of the Patriotic are necessary to ensure public safety. The author concludes by noting that a balance is needed to stop terrorist attacks from happening and observe human rights.
My opinion on this issue is that policymakers should practice caution and strike a balance between the need to keep the public safe and the overarching issue of allowing people to enjoy their freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution. National security is a sensitive issue, and the government, through its various agencies, such as the NSA, should come up with a criterion of defeating terrorism without creating laws that infringe on human rights. It makes sense to argue that people are expected to trade some of their freedoms for a secure nation. However, there could be a large threat from the misuse of such laws to curtail human rights. Therefore, I opine that the government should strike a healthy balance to ensure public safety and protect the Constitution.
References
Haynes, D. D. (2015). Liberty vs. security: An old debate renewed in the age of terror. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Web.