Whenever the United States is attacked, the question over the proper balance between liberty and security alwa?

Whenever the United States is attacked, the question over the proper balance between liberty and security always arises. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration responded in a number of ways to keep America safe: attacking Iraq in hopes of preventing the spread of WMDs, approving methods like waterboarding while questioning detainees, trying suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than established courts, and supporting the USA Patriot Act which increased government surveillance powers. Several members of the administration credit such measures with preventing further attacks and loss of life on American soil. Critics of the Bush Administration, however, say that these methods violate the principles of the American republic. They say waterboarding is torture, military tribunals deny defendants due process of law, and the USA Patriot Act's provisions grant the government far too much power, violating our fundamental freedoms. What do you think about these issues? Were the methods he used appropriate for the problems facing the United States, or did the government go too far in its exercise of power? Do you see any similarities to actions the government took in earlier times of crisis?