From The Atlantic is the article by Wallace.
I’d say this is a rather provocative article in what it seems to be insinuating: that with freedom and a “democracy,” we as a society, ought to accept the inherent risks in those endeavors, which in his article, means accepting terrorism over the security state.
Check out this passage in particular:
“In the absence of such a conversation [about safety], can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it?”
Are they worth it? I’d have to answer a resounding “no” to that.