> "The question is whether the security goals can be achieved by less-intrusive or sweeping means, without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights. "
No, NYT, the question is howwhich security goals can be achieved without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights.
There is no security goal that justifies destroying freedom, as freedom is the motivation for our security goals.
More like, it is easy to say that security is completely unimportant when you have spent your entire life in such a cocoon of security, you don't know what life is like outside of it.
No, NYT, the question is how which security goals can be achieved without trampling on democratic freedoms and basic rights.
There is no security goal that justifies destroying freedom, as freedom is the motivation for our security goals.