Civil Liberties vs. National Security - Which do you think is more important?

What is there to protect if there are no liberties?

National security.

Civil Liberties are a National Security Issue, and only those that seek to undermine them are the real enemies, of course IF people would quit giving "Civil Liberties" to criminals and protecting their rights "Which they don't have" over those of the real "Citizens" it really would not be an "issue" now would it.. Of course if you wish to "Undermine" the basic and fundamental intent and principles of "Constitutional Rights" of the Citizen, you extend those rights to those that don't deserve them in the first place, you import surrogate populations and tell the real citizens that they have no rights but they do ... when you make the citizen the criminal and the criminal the citizen you have no reason what so ever of expecting any other than destruction and turmoil and it ain't over yet in any since of the word. Fraud, Theft, Murder and Extortion under the "Pretense" of "National Security" is still Fraud, Theft, Murder and Extortion. ~Nemo~

I'm a democrat, so this is a very republican answer, but....National Security.

Why just in the United States? Isn't the tightrope between the two as important to me?

National Security is great as long as it protects individual rights, individual freedom and Civil Liberties. For a historical example of how National Security can go to extremes, review the history of Nazi Germany.

Civil Liberties. Without them we have already lost our nation.

merger...