Tension between Freedom and Security

The United States is in a tricky situation. First and foremost, we are a country that prides itself on being free. Even the fourth amendment to our Constitution declares, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet we are also a country that demands security. Americans expect that our government will keep us safe. These two ideals, freedom and security, are often at odds. How can we expect our government to stop terrorism without infringing on our rights? Recent disclosures, that the government has access to American phone calls and emails, have brought this debate to the forefront of public discourse.
Tension between freedom and security has been prevalent in America since its founding. In 1798, President Adams responded to the threat of war with France with the Sedition Act, which made opposition to the government practically illegal. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus to prevent disputes regarding the legality of arrests. President Roosevelt authorized Japanese internment during World War II. Clearly, our government has often felt at liberty to put personal freedoms on hold for safety and control.
Of course, a certain level of safety is necessary in order to maintain a livable society. We must abridge total freedom in order to assure a maximum amount. No one can live comfortably in a country with constant terrorist activity. At the same time, however, no one can live comfortably in a country with constant security checkpoints. Somehow, we must find a balance: security measures must be thorough, but restricted; enforced, but monitored; and advantageous, but just. On top of that, laws must be understood and approved by the general public. If a security measure is determined to be helpful and not overly pervasive, and if it reduces crime significantly and in proportion to the infringement of rights, then the security measure should be acceptable.
The government’s recent surveillance does not pass this test. This is unwarranted bulk screening that goes against some of our country’s most basic values. What make this security measure different from others, such as airport security, are the consent and pervasiveness factors: Plane passengers choose to fly, and the rights suspended are limited (Although TSA officers may discover the contents of your bag, they do not truly learn about you). This new all-encompassing surveillance, however, is unavoidable.