What the FUCK is wrong with protecting civil rights!

Why is the choice always framed as "What's more important - politics or a nuke at a major sporting event?" when dealinng with civil rights, national security and foreign policy.
The issue is not that liberals don't have concern for public safety and strong defense, but rather the way it is gone about.
There are already laws and procedures in place that allow for clasified wiretapping and getting a "subpoena" after the fact.
The issue Liberals have with this administratio is it is violating OUR (yours and mine) civil rights. We are not opposed to the government doing what is needed to protect us from terrorism, we just don't think civil rights should be a casulty--but when we say that--Bush and the rest come back at us with "politics" and make it out like we're in favor of terrorists nuking sporting events.

Here is my argument to the Bush/McCain politicians,conservative pundits and policy makers and conservative/evangelical voters: why not sit down and take our concerns into account--believe that we are not in favor of letting terrorists run unchecked; and we'll give you the credibility that you are not trying to run a police state. There are valid points in both camps--and this is exactly what Obama is and has been saying. But what we won't accept (and shouldn't from ourselves or conservatives) is more of the "painting with the political wide brush."

Liberals have NEVER said you have th RIGHT to call terrorists. We do say we have procedures in place and we should be open to discussing strategies that will indeed protect us--but NOT at the expense of civil liberties. It is not one or the other--we can and should have both.

Benjamin Franklin said "The nation that trades civil liberties for security will recieve neither." that is the tenant I am operating from.

This indeed is absolutely fundamental. This is why we have checks and balances; why we should want an independent judiciary.
If given this right to randomly collect at his will--with no deference to the rule of law--then who can say who will be next. We need to remember, ESPECIALLY in this time of "terror" that it is not the president who RULES, but the People and the RULE of LAW.If not we follow the Romans and our Senate becomes a rubber stamp while the plebes are having bread and circuses.
Most conservatives/Republicans do not want the all powerful executive; but the flaw (at least as I see it) is the argument Bush and the rest have that we are to "trust" that they will not abuse it:
"Give us this ability to protect you--we promise we don't want facism any more than you do."
2 Problems with that:
1> Power corrupts--absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2>What about the next guy? What about the next war? What about dissent? It is not hard to see that this could and would be abused.
Which is all that Liberals are saying. We're not trying to tie anyone's hands or help teh terrorists.
1> You are covered under the current process and laws2> If there is a loophole; lets figure out HOW to close it without denying the people their rights.
If we give up our rights, are we really American? and if we give up our rights, then what the HELL are we fighting for?

Fear mongering would be us stating unequivocally that "VOTING FOR BUSH's WIRETAPPINGS IS TURNING US INTO NAZI's"
We are not Nazi's and are not "sounding the alarms". We are debating WHY FISA is in place and does and can work, and why there is no need for liberals to be painted as "pro-terrorist" or the American people to have to choose between a nuke free sporting event and freedom. I personally want both.