"Ah - so one can forfeit their right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion by communicating with someone who has expressed a repugnant opinion."
During wartime, it *is* warranted.
You and your ilk are the scary ones. You crave total freedom, regardless of the consequences, even when it might very well directly lead to the deaths of scores, hundreds, perhaps thousands of Americans. Were your bankrupt ideas ever to come to reality, we would never be able to fight an effective war. If conservatism is dying, it's the loony libertarians who hold much of the blame.
What about unfettered surveillance of everyone who has been critical of US policy in the Middle East? After all, they probably share some opinions with those who support the terrorists? Is that necessary to fight an 'effective war.' What about unfettered surveillance of everyone who has ever visited a jihadist web site, even if it was done only to gather information on an issue raised in the Threat Matrix on FR? What about unfettered surveillance of everyone who ever watched a beheading video, because the MIGHT be supporters of the perps?
You either believe that unfettered surveillance of EVERYONE is necessary in a time of war, or you draw a line. Tell me - where do you draw the line? What is NOT necessary in a time of 'war'?
Under what circumstances do you deem the consequences of sufficient gravity to dispense with freedom?
Me, I think Franklin is correct. You will not gain security by sacrificing freedom, and those who tell you that you will are lying.
Just doesn't have quite the same ring...