Are you being obtuse? The issue that's been raised on thise thread (yet again) is that the wiretapping is posing an unacceptable violation of privacy.
My point is, if we don't do what's necessary to protect the nation our basic liberties are threatened. The government's job is to protect the nation's interests, it's borders (not a stellar track record, I'll grant you on this one) and the citizenry from attack. Civil liberties come second to basic liberties in my book. This really isn't hard to grasp...
To answer your last question, I just returned from Mexico where our bus was searched by federales. My civil liberties, although non-existenent there, were by definition, violated. In fact, we were racially and nationally profiled. Nothing even remotely like that happens here. Since I don't fund or speak with terrorists, I have little concern I'm being scrutinized. Why? Because there's no reason to. The govt. will put it's time, money and energies in the direction that it's most needed. And that isn't me.
I find recent the indignant "concern" about practices that go back to the days of Hoover and probably beyond most amusing.
If you aren't talking to AQ, I doubt you have much to worry about. But if you need something to keep you up at night, be my guest.
Me, I'll worry about a suitcase nuke in Boston or Omaha, not about the methods that were used to try to prevent it from going off.
The fact that the government is not doing things that are entirely appropriate and within their power to protect the nation, and is instead doing other things, should concern even you.
In any case, I think you are off-base in your assertion that the Constitution's statements in support of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the government can do whatever is necessary to stop all crime. After all, there are a host of legitimate restrictions on government when it comes to stopping crime. If it is a mugger in the alley instead of a suicide bomber on the bus, are you any less dead?
It is if the distinction between "civil" and "basic" liberties itself is problematic. To many, or at least to me, there is only one liberty: the right of self-determination. That includes making any decisions for myself that don't take away your right to make decisions for yourself. Since there is only one liberty, there can't be two different kinds--and hence, one can't take second place to another.
I think what you're calling "basic liberty" essentially means "not dying." The trouble is, there is no such right. People have no right to kill you, and if they try, you have a right to defend yourself--but no "right" guarantees that your self-defense will succeed, or that your murderer will fail. If you give up self-determination in exchange for an outcome, such as survival, then that's your choice, but it's mislabeling to call that "freedom", or a case of "one freedom outweighing another".
In what way? The stop and search must have been reasonable, by definition. As you say ...
I have little concern I'm being scrutinized. Why? Because there's no reason to.
Me, I'll worry about a suitcase nuke in Boston or Omaha, not about the methods that were used to try to prevent it from going off.
I'm not "worried" about it (although I expect some amount of protection from my overlords), but your advocacy for surveillance hasn't even roughly defined an outer perimeter.