Balancing national security and public safety against privacy and liberty, where do we draw the line?

The line was drawn in the Bill of Right . Although, it might not be perfect for some is a well thought and correct balance and has worked for a long time in a fair and safe way. It's the reason why we are a great nation and the reason we fight for it. Any change to the Bill of Rights is a disrespect to this nation and it's the real enemy. If our enemy makes us change the Bill of Rights, they win.

I also think that the Government has the duty to protect people but people has to understand that people will die. Stuff happens. It has happen all the time. People die everyday for many different reasons that the Government can't control and by the way people don't think to care either so how come terrorism is that big of a deal now if is not by propaganda. I tell you this I rather die in a terrorist attack than loosing the Bill of Rights. That is patriotism. That is fighting for freedom not all the way around.

I think the best government would be no government at all, but it isn't possible to allow people to live among each other with only the fear of revenge to keep them from harming each other. (I may be a Libertarian, but not an anarchist). But, seriously, I think the Constitution is the best document written in 2000 years..there were other good things that were written like the Magna Carta...English and French law...but a lot of thought went into it, I don't think anyone today could make any better or longer lasting version...it actually has provisions to evolve. It is our own society that is abusing it and making it less.

I don't have a problem with losing some of my freedoms for the sake of security as long as further checks and balances are put into effect and there is real oversight (in the spirit of the original framers) by all 3 branches--for any legitimate reason or suspicion--and proper standard procedures are taken--even if it's just a hunch. But somehow, the politics have to be eliminated from this invasion. The worst thing would be if the leaders used any of this information for any kind of personal gain.

As for the current condition, all the above applies with the addition of the lack of participation by the citizens in this process. We have been asked to do nothing more than give a bit of our freedom away for the sake of security--we are not allowed to defend ourselves from terrorism in any way. If this was a true emergency, the government must rely on all its patriots. Granted, I don't know what the answer is, but the government isn't allowing us the basic freedom to defend ourselves. I think terrorism is more a threat to our country rather than a threat to us individually (as yet anyway).

So I would have to say that the government should not be able to curtail our freedom without including the citizens from being a part of the solution and a being part of the decision making process-it's our country.

Why redraw the lines?

The Constitution has it right. Let the laws be written as wide as possible and enforced and narrowly impossible. And, you’ll end up as close to the middle as one could get. But, just in case someone comes along and messes a good thing up let’s divide up the powers.

Executive

Legislative

Judiciary

That way, if the judiciary branch gets too narrow, or too wide, in their interpretation of the law; either the legislative or executive branch can take a stab at it. And, if the executive branch goes out on a whim the legislative or judiciary branch can rein him back in.

Our system was set up the right way. As a country, we have survived over 200 years with our system. I love America, and am proud to be an American. I still believe in this country regardless of the mess I believe we are in. I have not lost faith that we will work all these issues of national security and personal freedoms out and be made a stronger country in the end.

In conclusion, the balance point between freedom with no security and total government surveillance will be found within our current system. Our system was built on checks and balances. I believe those same checks and balances will be applied to our freedoms. While I may not trust my president to give me those freedoms I do trust the other two branches of the government to reach a medium.

I draw the line at invasion of privacy at several levels:

The Government having unwarranted and unfettered access to individual Library Records, Medical Records , Telephone, Internet and Interception Of Mail. Some of the reasons I am against these methods of Government treatment is because I was taught well about the McCarthy Era, the many people who were destroyed and how innocent acts of decades before were used as evidence to smear them. It was a modern Crucible.

I draw the line!

Entry to my home and my property unless warranted by law.

I would expect the Government to have clear and convincing proof that I am a threat. The same goes for my financial records.

Idraw the line!

In the event of my arrest I would want strict interpretation of my Habeas Corpus rights and a fair trial. Security threat or no. We have had concentration camps before in the US, solely because of race. No other reason. We have Guantanamo which violates International law. If them, why not me , and on what pretext?

I draw the line.

A mandated national religion, abolishment of secular schools. I cherish my right to be free of religion. I draw the line.

Any revisions to the United States Constitution and The Bill Of Rights. It is the finest document of it's kind in our know history, to allow any one Administration to alter or redefine it to their purposes should be criminal. I draw the line.

There is nothing I have mentioned here that should be denied any citizen. And those lines are just for starters!

Thanks you for a great question, and the Answers are well done, too!

America is not a bunch of laws. Nor is it the seat of government in D.C. America is an ideal that exist in the mind of each and every one of us. For the most part this ideal is illusive and hard to define. The framers of the constitution did a fair job of committing this ideal to paper. The constitution is not so much a law of the land as it is an anchored mooring for those who love liberty. The constitution allows the country to drift left or right as need be then snap back to center when the mooring line become too taut.

The current troubles facing America have brought issues into debate that haven't been discussed in decades. The subject of your question is an example. It is natural for the mood of the country and the seat of power to drift right during times of strife. During times of peace and prosperity, the mood swings left. I am not sure as to the wisdom of drawing legal lines as to how far the government can swing one way or the other. I believe it is far better for the people as a whole to pull or rein in the government when a majority feel the ideal of freedom is being compromised. It is this process that has kept the constitution a living, breathing spirit. This is the process that has allowed each generation to learn and experience freedom. How would you know that fire will burn your hand if the stove is never on?

As the government becomes more intrusive, at the same time it becomes more secretive.

You're right, I would draw the line right here and begin pushing it back.

I think that's the best we could do to balance our national security against our liberty.

Oh, and making the president take a lie detector test too, or at least making him hold his news conferences under oath. I wouldn't suggest we do water-boarding on him.

Maybe we could get a web-cam put in the oval office as well. One on top of the desk and another under the desk. I suppose we ought to go ahead and install one in the wash room too.

I think those simple changes would do a lot to make the world safer from terrorism and help us win back some of our freedoms we have lost.

I know you may not agree.

I don't have time to present the awesome verbal argument that I would offer to the Supreme Court (Scalia would probably just snort and say something rude anyway.). I do want to comment because it's an important question that has been muddied through dimwitted media coverage, and left intentionally vague here by Coranth's "open" question.

I'll draw a couple of lines for you right off: the Constitution, as amended, and the laws of the US.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, discussing limits on legislative power, says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

That means that, unlike in Saddam's Iraq, a few brutes in a truck are not allowed to pull up, grab you, and drive away, so that you're never heard from again. Not in these United States.

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says of the President that "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That says that neither the President, nor any of his cronies in executive branch, can move the "line" of liberty without action by Congress. No suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, even if he "really" needs it, without going to Congress and getting a law passed to do it.

Courts have repeatedly spoken on the limits of presidential power, namely: where Congress as authorized presidential authority in law, his power is greatest; where they have not spoken, more limited; and where Congress has proscribed action, the least. I want citation "credit" for noting that the in the recent ruling against the President on domestic wiretapping, the judge ruled that this was a case of "weakest presidential power," because Congress had set out rules for FISA Court authorization.

The 4th and 5th amendendments to the Constitution are quite specific on a spectrum of individual rights:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

The government must respect these words as it attempts to balance freedoms with law enforcement. I'll make these two points before I quit:

1. The rights spelled out in the Constitution are individual rights. Every encroachment on these rights has to be proved for each individual affected.

2. The "wiggle room" that does exist in the above wording has to do with "reasonableness." How reasonable is it for the government to raid your home, seize your records, grab you and trundle you off to a police station? I appreciate the need for the government to develop sensitivities that expose clear and convincing evidence of criminal activity. The integral role of the judiciary in the preceding examples strongly suggests that the more fragile the authority of the government (in finding exceptions to constitutionally protected rights), the greater the need for judicial oversight and due process.

If you wish to learn to bring an ideal image all that's necessary is time and Realistic Pencil Portrait Mastery guide from here https://tr.im/hhlLe to stay the proper path.

The lessons from Realistic Pencil Portrait Mastery guide contain 208 pages and a total of 605 illustrations.  The essential process applied is that you start with a picture, bring a light outline of the function, and then color it in.

Realistic Pencil Portrait Mastery is the right allied to help make the great draw.

Now that is an excellent question.

I would err on the side of to much liberty. The other side is a slippery slope. When liberties are lost, it will be almost impossible to gain them back. The Presidency has accumulated a significant amount of power in the last 6 years. Also, congress seems to be very willing to give more power to the President if requested. In my view the courts are the only branch standing up to the President. What are the chances of a coup?

ok lets put it like this , do you think terror groups would use the same way to attack evrytime, not if they are dumb enough , no matter how clever you are writing laws people will find a loophole accept that. I can give you an example from an indian political magazines when mobile phones were launched in India , they were preffered mode of communication in india by all wrong people. to control terrorism the govt decided to make the process tough by asking for identification , terrorist started making false Ids to get them , the ID process was scrutinized but some people called its racial profiling because the people of that religion are in significant number in the parliament. I like to privacy and liberty but what can we do when it comes to security , I know a few people who work for intelligence and they admitted that they located IP servers of some mails even when they were not allowed to do so , becuase they were helpless, the other methods were not possible. You and me are nothing but innocent by standers of this society and at times we will have forgo I basic rights for the sake of our country and for the sake of humanity.