The people in the U.S. came to the realization after 9/11 that TERRORISTS were amongst them with the intent to destroy their lives (both physically and in principle). Therefore, citizens look to authority to protect them: the birth of the Patriot Act. Although some feel these steps were/are drastic, don’t the people of the U.S. have the right, if not the obligation, to take actions in order to protect the greater good, even if it meant sacrificing some individual rights, in the face of the widespread and unseen terror?
If ur answer is not proper i will report and delete it, 100 points is more than worth a good response. Thank you. I will mark brainly the best answer giving you 200 points

There is a famous theory by Kenneth Kitchen that has been used about this topic very widely, the theory itself is too hard to summarize with the limited character so I'll use a singular quote: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. In other words, just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there and vice versa. This theory basically goes off of hope that something is there just because initial signs point to it. The reason its used in arguments like this is because it basically justifies someone doing something irrational as taking away someone's individual rights for suspicion's they have neither confirmed nor denied kind of like Schrodinger's cat. But this is told from the catcallers perspective and not the victim itself, not only have you taken away their rights because you thought something , you didn't even have to prove any of your accusations. In other words its the land of the free, and here we have a court of lie where a person or persons are liable to meet these accusations in a court of their peers for a fair trial before anyone's rights can be revoked, this isn't a 'partriot' act, its a fear act. And fear is the degrader of the mind , and the plague of society.