I will be presenting arguments in favor of individual liberties compromised in the name of national security and provide a counter argument, which I espouse. In this regard, I maintain that individual liberties should be minimally compromised, if possible not compromise at all, even in the name of national security due to the fundamental principles which serves as the country – freedom, equality and democracy. And because of the fact that United States is a country of immigrants.
Generally, liberty presupposes the idea that a human person is a rational agent, capable of making decisions and has the freedom to act upon the decision that he/she has arrived. This is necessary in order for the human person to flourish and realize his/her potentialities. This presupposition is deemed inherent in all human beings as human beings. However, in reality, not everybody can do anything that he/she wants because it may cause harm to others. As such, people have decided to enter into an agreement creating the state so that they can live peacefully, continue living together and pursue the good life. In this sense, it can be impugned that the state is created by the people, for the people and through the people. In return, the state provides protection to life, liberty and properties of the people. However, 9/11 has created the condition wherein the state has to impinge on individual liberties in order to protect the lives and properties of the greater majority since after 9/11 “the home front has become the battlefront” (Wolfowitz 2002 as cited in Krikorian 461).
In this sense, there are those who advocate the idea that the state in the name of national security should be given more room to infringe on individual liberties and that individual liberties should be curtailed to the extent that the protection and security of the