Nor do I understand how collecting of secret information about people is supposed to prevent illegal detention. Habeas corpus proceedings have for 350 years been sufficient to prevent illegal detention in England and the United States, so long as the procedural availability of the remedy wasn't constricted. "We don't know enough to know whether this person is dangerous" is not a constitutional reason for any detention, so "you can't argue that you don't know enough to let him out because you know everything" isn't a meaningful line of constitutional attack, much less one that would be a sufficient reason to allow government to know everything.

I can't tell whether the logical failures in this draft, which are simple and fundamental, result from your not really believing what you are arguing, or from a failure to test your arguments against tough opposition. Either way, the route to improvement here is to establish either the arguments you really want to make, or the method by which you strengthen these existing arguments against the most effective and persistent foreseeable opposition.