A question about the NSA debate for any parents out there. [View all]
Unlike some, I don’t know what the best solution to the NSA debate is. I’m not comfortable with the idea of the government (and even more so, its contractors) spying on us. I’m uncomfortable with the amount of trust we’re asked to place in the “system.” But I’m also not comfortable with allowing deaths from terrorism to occur that could be prevented if the government continued to collect and analyze patterns of meta-data on phone calls. Which is why I have a question for other parents. Or for anyone who loves someone else more than themselves.
Several days ago, someone asked if DUers would accept 200 US deaths a year from terrorism if that was the consequence of ending the kind of surveillance we’ve been subjected to. Most people confidently replied that they would. If 200 deaths every year from terrorism was the price to pay for ending the collection of meta-data, then so be it.
It’s easy to talk about 200 deaths in an abstract sense. But I’d like to ask anyone who is a parent how they would answer if they KNEW their OWN child or children were among the two hundred? Would they accept the death of their OWN children in exchange for ending the phone call surveillance? Or are they just assuming that the odds are excellent that none of their loved ones would be among the 200?
I know I wouldn’t be able to sacrifice one of my children on the altar of my idealism. How many parents would, really? So, if we’re absolutely honest with ourselves, is it only okay to have 200 terrorism deaths a year if our OWN children aren’t among them?
What kind of principled, moral stand is that?
The reason I directed this to parents is that they will understand that it is much easier for me to imagine giving up my own life for the sake of a principle than giving up my child for one. As I said, I don’t know what the solution to this debate is. What I do know, as a parent, is that there are no easy answers.
= new reply since forum marked as read