Due process is more important than national security

I'll create a short case of my own, then refute my opponents arguments.I affirm: Due Proccess should be valued over National Security.I first observe that the only justifiable role of the State is to protect the rights of it's people. Give the State the arbitrary authority to revoke rights and harm its people, and you've destroyed it's purpose.Contention one: Valuing National Security over Due Process devalues them bothThere are two philosophies when it comes to government and their jurisdiction over rights, the first is that the State must uphold the rights of its people at all costs, and the second is that the governemnts job is not to protect it's citizens liberty, but rather to protect its citizens from any threats at all. The second is essentially what my opponent is upholding, and it fails on both moral and practical grounds.It is also, unfortunately, the course that the U.S. government has taken with respect to rights. Let's examine the practical effects that the U.S. government has had on the liberty of its citizens. Robert Higgs contrasts the early American government with today[1]:"There was a time, long ago, when the average American could go about his daily business hardly aware of the government...he could decide what, how, when, and where to produce and sell his goods...Just think: no farm subsidies, price supports,or acreage controls; no Federal Trade Commission; no antitrust laws; no Interstate Commerce Commision...no National Labor Relations board; no federal consumer "protection" laws; no Security and Exchange commision; no Equal Employment Opportunity Commision, no Departnment of Health and Human Services...There were no general sales taxes, no Social Security taxes, no income taxes. Though governmental officials were corrupt then as nw, they had vastly less to be corrupt with. Private citizens spent about fifteen times more than all governments combined. Those days, alas, are long gone." Indeed, the more we are "protected" from harm by our government, the more we sacrifice the very basis of all protection: economic security and self reliance. Hoppe furthers Higges sentiment[2]: "Two-hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically. Now, year in and year out the American government expropriates more than 40% of the incomes of private producers, making even the burden on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and Silver have been replaced by government manufactured paper...the meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid...every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and reregulated by ever higher mountais of paper laws...the committment to free trade and non-intervensionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism." The experiment of governmental power being able to strip away rights has failed, and renders them useless. After all, why would one want to sign a contract with an entity granting them the power to take away your property, liberty, and even life[3]. Contention two: National Security?What does "national security" even mean? My opponents definition is as follows: "Measures adopted by the government of a nation in order to assure the safety of its citizens, guard against attack, and prevent disclosure of sensitive or classified information which might threaten or embarrass said nation."Essentially, in the Neg world, anything that can even be viewed as a threat is enough to strip away due process--even things tat merely "embarass said nation". Pardon my language, but what the hell does that even mean? Essentially, if you negate the government can take away your rights because you embarass them? This shows a clear line to affirm the resolution. Nazi Germany was embarrassed by the Jews and political dissenters it had in its borders, so it slaughtered them; and if you follow my opponents logic to its full conclusion, you get the same result. If we can lose due process because of something so absurd, than why have a government at all? What exactly are they to protect us against if they're the ones harming people in the first place? Consider these questions before negating.==Rebuttal==Shifting threats:There's literally no substance behind this argument at all. It in no way justifies a restriction of due process, he merely says that the constitution is no longer relevant. My response: so what? There was no prerequiste to accepting the debate that I had to defend the Constitution as in its current form, merely due process. He argues: "they foresaw future threats and compensated for them, but it's fair to say they never imaged anything like our current world." but he gives no examples of what these threats are, or why they matter, so ignore his entire contention.Principle not ruleI also agree that the government should legistlate based on principle rather than rule. I've already given arguments in support of my principle, that is that national security becomes worthless without the rule of law (due process). My opponent does not justify his position in any way whatsoever.He argues: " For instance the right to a speedy and public trial, if a U.S. citizen is to engage in an act of terrorism it is safer for society if the individual be detained without trial, or be subject to military trial." Why? Why does it matter where they are tried? He hasn't explaiend why violating their due process rights makes us safer in any way at all. Further, even if you find some impact coming off this, it isn't unique to his case-- violent treason against the United States is a de-facto renunciation of citizenship, so due process doesn't need to be applied.He argues that we can't try "terrorists" in courts because they wont always get a death sentence, but this begs the question as to how we even know they're terrorists if we don't try them in court! Removing the need for a trial allows the government to label everyone it doesnt like a "terrorist" and thus able to be assassinated with imputiny. Already the government has detained innocents at Gauntonomo bay becuase they refused to give the "terrorists" a trial[4]. Don't buy into the rhetoric that showing justice is an act of weakness, it is not. Further, his only offensive ground is that civilian trials dont always give convictions, but military trials do. Well what kind of trial is it if there's an automatic conviction?! Moreover, he argues that we CANT try terrorists in civilian courts because ot violates international law. First of all, dont buy this without a card considering we've done it before[5], but also if we legally can't try people in civilian courts, than we are upholding due process by trying them in military courts. His minimal impact is turned.My opponent isnt even arguing the resolution. He says that the steps our government has taken to value national security are justified, but that isn't weighing it against due process, so he loses automatically. SafeguardsMy Opponent argues "If the government blatantly violates our rights to Due Process they can step in and correct it as needed" This is foolish. If the government doesnt respect the rights of its citizens, why would it respect the right of the judiciary to override it? It would not. He argues that the constitution is a living document. I disagree. He gave no logic or evidence support his assertation, so I'll just assert right back that he's wrong. His final statement is: "This would conclude that Due Process should not be valued over National Security, but rather that they are both instrumental in protecting a nation and at times should be limited in order to perserve our freedoms and security" No. He's failing to uphold his BOP when he basically says "well the res might be true or false". That is not negating.My Opponent failed to argue the resolution properly or tried to weigh due process vs. national security on any meaningful level.Affirm.Citations:1. http://tinyurl.com...