I have a question for my readers and fellow bloggers of all political persuasions.
At what point, if any, do you draw the line with regards to the government's moral authority during wartime to peek into the private lives of its citizen in the name of national security?
This is not meant as an adversarial question, and I've tried to word it as inoffensively as possible. I think it's a question a lot of Americans are (or should be) wrestling with, and I'm not sure there's an easy answer, though many of you may disagree with me on that.
Please note that the question refers to the government's moral authority, not legal authority, which is a completely different matter.
Also, if you don't classify our current situation as "wartime," please explain how your position would be different if you did, assuming it would be. If it wouldn't be, please note that as well.
Other than that, I'm pretty sure y'all don't need any instructions from me. I think ideally bloggers would answer this question on their own sites, rather than in my comments section, then either trackback to this post or leave a comment with your link and I'll keep an updated list.
Have at it!
PS: I don't kid myself that I'm the most read blog out there (yet), so if any other bloggers - or readers - want to spread that word, that'd obviously be great.
Update: Let me clarify a point that I obviously wasn't clear about. For purposes of this "thought experiment," in separating the moral from the legal, pretend that the legal doesn't exist. In otherwords, the otherwise perfectly reasonable answer that in violating its legal authority the government violates its moral authority does not apply here. Think of the law as tabula rasa, upon which you can impose perfect morality. The law that you would devise in this situation would, in fact, be the line you would draw with regards to where the government's moral authority ends.
Update2: Dean Esmay shares his thoughts here.