The Boundaries of National Security

When we think of justifying actions of our government these days, what do we say? We say "This war is for protecting democracy!" and, "That act is for preserving freedom!", and so on and so forth. We almost always flaunt our fundamental Constitutional principles and rights--and their preservation--as justification for a controversial action. But what happens if we start justifying the VIOLATION of Constitutional rights for the preservation of Constitutional rights? It doesn't make much sense to me either! How can we sit here and actually buy that? How does it make sense for the government to abuse and ignore the Bill of Rights in an effort to UPHOLD them against the radical, violent terrorists across the globe that are actively trying to destroy them?

I don't know about you guys, but I don't see that much "wiggle room" around Due Process, a right every citizen is -clearly- given in the Bill of Rights. But hey, all the government has to do is bring up 9/11, preserving freedom, and suddenly Rendition seems like an AWESOME idea!! And privacy? Why do you need privacy unless you're doing something wrong!? HUH!??! I guess I should just "take one for the team" and acquiesce to the government tapping all of my mommy's conversations with Granny over in "hotspot" Syria. Sarcasm aside, yeah I do think there are boundaries when it comes to preserving national security. I am not asking for much really, just my own government to respect the Constitution it was founded upon. Is that really too much to ask for?

So yeah, maybe the terrorists out there are trying to destroy our democratic principles of freedom and liberty, but how can they when our own government is beating them to the punch?