Here's the argument for being a surveillance state. Why we need government surveillance
It's pretty much "terror, terror, terror".
Editor's note: Glenn Sulmasy is professor of law and chairman of the department of humanities at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He is the homeland and national security law fellow at the Center for National Policy in Washington and author of "The National Security Court System -- A Natural Evolution of Justice in an Age of Terror."
<snip>
The current threat by al Qaeda and jihadists is one that requires aggressive intelligence collection and efforts. One has to look no further than the disruption of the New York City subway bombers (the one being touted by DNI Clapper) or the Boston Marathon bombers to know that the war on al Qaeda is coming home to us, to our citizens, to our students, to our streets and our subways.
This 21st century war is different and requires new ways and methods of gathering information. As technology has increased, so has our ability to gather valuable, often actionable, intelligence. However, the move toward "home-grown" terror will necessarily require, by accident or purposefully, collections of U.S. citizens' conversations with potential overseas persons of interest.
An open society, such as the United States, ironically needs to use this technology to protect itself. This truth is naturally uncomfortable for a country with a Constitution that prevents the federal government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures." American historical resistance towards such activities is a bedrock of our laws, policies and police procedures.
But what might have been reasonable 10 years ago is not the same any longer. The constant armed struggle against the jihadists has adjusted our beliefs on what we think our government can, and must, do in order to protect its citizens.
<snip>
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/10/opinion/sulmasy-nsa-snowden/
