Americans' rights versus securtiy?

Does the government have the right to take away some of our rights away for security? please tell me about the U.S. Patriot Act, how the government has changed since 9/11 (including airport security? Also, how else has the government already taken away some of our rights for security? PLease give me facts to support your feelings about the topic. What has been passed since 9/11 that relates to my question. Plesase tell what u know about AUMF and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Thanks

if you don't unite,you lose the right--MIGHT wins,sitting and talking crap,fixes nothing--a mans worth is in his actions ,not his talk

how the govt has changed since 9/11:
patriot act, gitmo, waterboarding, FISA (domestic surveillance), stricter USA-VISIT laws, no-knock police searches, etc.
Unfortunately, when we respond to security issues by moving down the road to totalitarianism, we risk becoming a security threat ourselves.

Those who give up liberty for security have neither.

This is more a political question than a legal one.
From a legal perspective, the United States Constitution sets forth numerous specific rights of US citizens, as well as limits on government powers, and finally makes it clear in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Put simply, if the Constitution doesn't specifically (directly or implied) authorize the Federal government to exercise certain powers, then there is no legal basis for the government to do so. The trick then becomes enforcing those constitutional restrictions on a government that controls the usual mechanisms for enforcing the laws.
In our representative republic form of democracy, the Legislature is supposed to create laws, the Executive enforces them and the Judicial interprets them. When all branches are controlled by individuals who believe (perhaps for different reasons) that a certain course of action by the government is 'the way to go', then it becomes almost impossible to stop that from happening - even if it is contrary to Constitutional limitations.
In the final analysis, the American people need to elect representatives, senators and executives who will act in good faith for the best interests of the country and its citizens. Although there may be differences of opinion as to what laws or federal actions accomplish that goal most effectively, these elected officials must also be able and willing to negotiate with each other to achieve some consensus, and to listen to what their constituents have to say.
Voters (citizens in general) also have an obligation to think about the issues that are important to them and to communicate their ideas and opinions to their elected officials. You can't fault Congress for enacting bad laws if you never even let your own representative know why you believe they are bad.
To return to the specific questions, though - liberty and security are always in conflict and government must always strike a balance between these two conflicting interests. Because circumstances change over time, though, the best balance needs to change from time to time as well. In time of war or other conflict, liberties must sometimes yield to security interests for the good of the nation as a whole. Crisis sometimes justifies extraordinary security measures at the cost of freedoms. That argument can be (and in my opinion, has been) abused to justify unnecessary security measures for inadequate or improper reasons.