What is the proper balance between national security and the protection of individual rights?

Your opinion?

This is an excellent question, because the two certainly work against each other. When we are fearful, we trade our liberties for security. When we feel safe, we trade our security for civil liberties. I think that the balance between the two must constantly be under TRANSPARENT negotiation between the citizens and their "protectors" in town hall meetings, in news articles, in blogs, and on Capitol Hill. So, there is no hard and fast rule about the balance between the two. But when government does not allow for negotiation to occur, it is time to really, really worry.

There is no reason to believe that we must choose between protection of national security and protection of individual rights. Aside from improbable hypotheticals, protection of both can be achieved at the same time if the government is committed to protect both. We have done it for years in this country.

Don't give in to fear. Protect your liberty. We don't have to exchange our liberty for security.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Usually attributed to Ben Franklin, but see the link below.

Rights come first and foremost. National security can go take a leap as far as I'm concerned. In my opinion, it is the government serving "allies" like Israel that put our nation in danger. With friends like Israel, we don't need enemies. I say dump Israel and restore our rights and our freedoms. The war on terror is their war, not ours.

We're still figuring that one out and figuring it out is worthy of a degreed course of study at one of those fancy Ivy League universities.

Answers like that of liberal48 are a form of whistling past the graveyard. This issue will ALWAYS be with us because of the kind of nation we have - and that's a GOOD THING. Simplistic answers from folks unwilling to confront the really hard issues are of no use whatsoever.