Something isn’t resonating when you express an opinion about due process while being baffled by the concept of national security. Clearly you understand the value of due process, but appear to miss the importance or necessity of protecting that process. I’m not sure how that happens.
Yes; I have no clue what "protecting that process" even means. Protect it from whom, in what scenario? Clearly the domestic nature of this process is real and already eroding domestic values and protections, whereas the threat to national security is at best hypothetical, at worst intentionally obscured for fear of evaluation. How can we even evaluate if the foreign actor is a greater threat to our lives than the domestic actor?
This is not restricted to state-vs-state squabbling, either. The "no-fly" list and use of "terrorist" are equally concerning in how easily they're accepted despite enabling arbitrary, antisocial, and clearly unjust behavior of the state that undermine the theoretical values that the propaganda of the state itself advances.
If you really believe that national security threats are “at best hypothetical” then we don’t share enough common ground to constructively discuss the subject.
Well, yes. Hence why I made the post—to attempt (in good faith) to overcome americans' inherent unwillingness to discuss topics of substance.
Here's how I interpret "national security": the goal of protecting against literally any kind of threat to the material comforts of average americans. Otherwise we would have sacrificed a lot of global trade in the last two decades to protect us against retribution a la 9/11. As it stands that threat has only increased.
What sort of threat do you think is worth eroding values to protect against?
