Why does it matter the security measures they have to take? If you aren't doing anything illegal, it shouldn't matter. If they didn't take safety so drastically, you could be getting on a plane with terrorist sitting beside you plotting your death. So they are actually keeping safe, and out of harms way. If they would have started all of the security measures before, would 9/11 still happened?

Dictatorships and would-be dictators routinely infiltrate legal citizen groups and report back to the group in power …Historically, infiltrators are also directed to disrupt and harass such organisations. The goal: to ensure that it becomes too costly and nerve-wracking to act out as a citizen.

We're always being watched, look at military code one....
anyone who has ever been to wikileaks is on "the list" there's a ridiculous amount of people monitered out there for simply questioning the government? Sure i'm for reducing a threat but when it breaks to the point where you can't even question authority without being "un-patriotic" is pathetic, questioning the government is the most patriotic thing a person can do, it's our duty to take government accountability not to blindly follow what they say.
look at the rise of the third reich, or muscillini's tacticts, there's so much common things happening now that's happened in the past with fascist governments and we don't care to open our eyes, do you think fascism will be obvious? this is one of many reasons as to a sign...
I get "ssss" tickets when flying cause i'm "on the list" for being a member of ACLU. There's a variety of journalist's that's been arrested for "enemy combatant" prisoned in guantanamo, tortured (again see military code one) and released with no charges...Again intimidation is a big factor. Who wants to go to jail? Who wants to protest and get beat up or even worse.

James Yee was a Chaplin in the US Military. He was being detained and accused of being a terrorist spy, due mostly to a term paper he wrote about Islam. He says, “religion is being used as a weapon.” by the US Military.

In Charlestown, S.C. there is a prison for citizen enemy combatants.

Maher Arar, a Canadian who the US govt sent to Syria to be tortured for 10 months with no charges filed and others who are held in American prisons and not allowed redress.




think i'm lying about the torture?
The government can pick up anyone it wants and hold them as an ‘enemy combatant’. They are then not official ‘prisoners of war’ and are not eligible for the protection of the Geneva Convention

Secretary of Defense Donald ‘Duck You Suckers’ Rumsfeld personally sought to redefine torture as only “organ failure” or “severe pain and suffering with specific intent”. He expands the 16 rules of interrogation to 35. Nice guy. Favorite exercise, running his chainsaw. I kid you not.

The Nazi’s used the exact same term ‘Enhanced Interrogation’, ‘Verscharfte Vernehmung’. Sounds better in German actually. Many other disturbing Third Reich linguistic similarities. Why was this done? There were enough smart people in the White House to catch this, and it was brought to their attention immediately when made public. So what kind of sick and twisted Skull and Bones bullshite we got here?

The White House memo for 2-7-02. “Geneva does not apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda, detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war” Good ole GWB doing his patri-idiotic duty.

From all reports, torture is known to provide much wrong and distorted information. People will say anything to make it stop. The reason for invading Iraq was based on false evidence obtained by torture

The word privacy is not found in the U.S. Constitution, so it cannot be claimed as a fundamental right. Therefore, people saying that the TSA's 'pat downs' are an intrusion of privacy is an invalid statement. Congress approved these acts of security measuers. It is our congress' job to 'secure the general welfare of its citizens.

Personal Freedom < Lifes saved

According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau to have ur rights protected some other rights are going to be taken away so yes ur privacy may be taken away but personal freedom and all the other rights are going to be protected

umm this is all good stuff so im going to use it in my debate case:))

I like pie''

terrorists steal it

@ IZZI
The reason there hasnt been a terrorist attack in ten years is because of the TSA, so you can gtfo

Osama stole my pie :(

there hasnt been a terrorist attack in 10 years because they are so strict cuz there have been many attempts stopped

cool debate bro

The government has been trying to put all this stress on us and our nation, because of terrorist. They need to get off their butt's, walk out of their office's and do something legit.

Resolved, the benefits of post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. My partner and I strongly advocate the resolve for a vast array of reasons that will be expressed in our contentions. To help facilitate this debate I will offer the following definitions in the resolve. Benefits according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary are “more helpful than harmful”. Outweigh according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary is “to exceed in importance”, and personal freedom, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary is “the rights or liberties given to one’s person.” Now to elucidate our standing on the topic, I offer our following contentions. CONTENTION 1: The Diminishment of Liberties or Privacies are necessary to combat terrorism, and the new security measures are helping against the potential risk of a terroristic attack. CONTENTION 2: The Governments role is to provide security for its citizens. And CONTENTION 3: These so called “violation of rights” are voluntary.
Addressing CONTENTION 1: The Diminishment of Liberties or Privacies are necessary to combat terrorism, and the new security measures are helping against the potential risk of a terroristic attack. Lao Tzu, the famous philosopher, once said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” These single steps are not only crucial to combat terrorism, but after the death of Osama Bin Laden terrorism potential is at an all time high. Everyone is familiar with the phrase “technology feeds technology”, that being said, as technology is increased, it makes the convenience of terroristic attacks easier for terrorist, making it a dire, pragmatic need for new security. These new security measures have no only mitigated terrorism, but have also prevented major air hijackings since Sep/11 2001. In the last 5 years alone, more than 30 attempts on terrorism have been foiled, and security measures have attracted a poll of approval from 4 out of 5 citizens. Without these new security measures, we could not provide security to those who wish to fly, which brings me to my second contention.
CONTENTION 2: The government’s role is to provide security for the people. Under the 4th amendment, U.S citizens have a right to be secure in their persons. So if we deny these new security measures to airports, we are denying American citizens security, in proof taking away our 4th amendment rights, which would be removing our personal freedom. People may argue that since there are “pre 9/11 security measures” the airports are technically keeping us safe and holding their end to the 4th amendment rights, but doing that they are denying American citizens security in the fullest extent. That being said, look back in history when the Articles of Confederation couldn’t raise an army, which means it couldn’t protect our citizens, so we decided to forge the Constitution. In the preamble of the Constitution it says we are a government for the people, by the people, wouldn’t you say that security of citizens is a very important aspect, and that these new security measures are helping maintain our 4th Amendment right? We all remember the detrimental effect 9/11 left on America. Look into the eyes of any 9/11 victims friends or family and tell them these new security measures are harming personal freedom. Look them in the eyes and tell them that these new security measures aren’t worth “offending” some people’s privacy. Those 2,752 victims that died on that tragic day don’t have any options to personal freedom protection. You tell their families that we should not introduce new security to protect U.S airports. We shouldn’t be forced to introduce security, we should want to introduce new security to make sure that no terrorist attack that tragic ever happens again, which brings us to our final contention.
CONTENTION 3: These “so called” violations of rights are voluntary. When you fly from Georgia to California that is a luxury. Meaning you fly because you want to, not because you have to. You don’t have to fly to live. When you step into an airport, you are agreeing to limit your personal freedom, and correspond to the companies rules, just as rights are limited in schools, and common place work jobs. As I expressed in my 2nd contention, no personal rights or freedoms are being violated, and if we don’t introduce new security measures we will be taking away personal freedoms under the 4th amendment. So not only do the benefits of post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom, they are actually more Constitutional meaning that no personal harms are violated, but without using the new security measures they are.
So in summary no personal rights are being violated, and at that the security measures themselves have proven they are beneficiary. I have shown you that by not introducing these security measures to airports, we are limiting our 4th amendment rights, which in itself outweighs the “claimed” personal freedoms loss. So ask yourself this. What personal freedoms will you have, if the Constitution can’t protect you? Thank you that is it.

Thank you for the debate case! Seems very thorough. I will quote you as a senator a few times!

R.I.P. 9/11 heros