Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

I'm going to start by providing a constructive then offer a short rebuttal to my opponent's case. Observation:I do have an amendment to offer to my opponent's analysis. My opponent's job is to prove that all civil liberties should be prioritized to national security, which I believe his case agrees with. As such I must only prove that some civil liberties can be bypassed for the sake of national security. After all, it would be ridiculous for me to argue that the nation should slaughter civilians during a food shortage to preserve a more viable population. I believe my opponent will find that agreeable, but I want to make that clear so the debate can have focus. Definitions:I agree with the definitions my opponent did provide; however, I'd like to contest the ones he didn't provide. For a proper understanding of the debate, we cannot simply rely on common sense to guide us through this discussion. When we're talking about civil liberties do we mean fundamental rights, basic human rights, or rights that we feel we should have? Is the living wage a civil liberty? Is the freedom of expression through the clothing we wear a civil liberty? Your answer may differ. I'd like to provide a fairly lengthy definition. I suggest my opponent reads it. This is an abbreviated version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the UN, which I believe provides a good list of basic civil liberties: . http://hrlibrary.umn.edu...'s not too long and not too short. I would also like to define national security and how it is to be understood in this debate: National security is a concept that a government, along with its parliaments, should protect the state and its citizens against all kind of "national" crises through a variety of power projections, such as political power, diplomacy, economic power, military might, and so on [2]. Now onto my case:Civil Liberties that we can Temporarily Forgo:Civil liberties are great. I love that we can have a debating site like this. However, there are many civil liberties to consider, and some of them are only practical during a peaceful state and are not unreasonable to temporarily retract during a state of emergency. Among these rights is article 13 - right to free movement in and out of the country. Imagine a food crises or a severe national drought in a smaller country. It may be practical to set up a travel ban in order to have a set population with which you're trying to work. Though the Trump travel ban was controversial, we weren't facing any such crisis. Imagine a food shortage so severe that a state of emergency must be declared. It would be reasonable that you would want a population to help the crisis, and you may want to restrict immigrants to not add to the problems you already have with feeding people. Now let's address article 22 - the right to social security. This is not the US social security program, but rather the right to develop ones own personality [3]. In what situations might this be restricted? In World War II, fabric and clothing material was rationed for the war effort. It made sense because there were a lotime soldiers on the ground and a lot of need for clothing for our military and the people. So clothing that used excessive fabric like zoot suits were technically under a ban and considered unpatriotic [4]. While the zoot suit riots are nothing to be proud of, the concept makes sense. If we need to restrict some fabric usage for the sake of aiding national security, that's reasonable right? You may be thinking this seems like a ridiculous thing to be part of the debate as a civil liberty. But if the government suddenly declared that wearing certain clothing was completely illegal, there would be some concern. Freedom of expression is part of freedom of speech, which is our first amendment to the Constitution of the United States [5]. Another example is the freedom of the press. During a state of emergency, it may be particularly harmful for the press to consistently criticize the government's attempts to remedy the crisis. Mandating perhaps that the media at least report from a more positive standpoint until a state of emergency is over may aide in speeding up the process, which ties to the right to assembly. To use the World War II example. During that time, women were required to get into the work force because most of the men were fighting overseas. What if the media had been overly critical, and the women had decided to start protesting instead of working? The country's industry would've fallen, and it could've significantly hurt the ability of the country to produce basic living supplies and military equipment. We wouldn't have gained anything by protesting, but consistently marching would've hurt us considerably. My final example will be the right to vacation time. It makes sense that people need a break every once in a while to spend time with their family. But often times during a state of emergency, that would be unreasonable. We wouldn't see our country significantly benefited by people taking their sick time and vacation time to wait out the economic or food or war crisis that's happening. That would only further the problem. Again, these rights can be found in the link I posted for my definition and source [3] has the actual declaration in full written form. I contest that these civil liberties may be abridged without significant harm to justice or liberty during a state of emergency or for the sake of national security. Rebuttal:My opponent moves from addressing how countries have used national security as a guise to saying that this was done for the sake of national security. I am not required to argue for situations in which national security is not the main consideration in abridging civil liberties it does not fall under my burden. On Effectiveness in the Digital Age:The NSA has become rather controversial but controversy doesn't imply something is bad, and the feelings we have about things also do not determine things like justice. For example, it may seem like a serious breach of privacy for the government to monitor phone calls, but take into account the following considerations:1) The government only cares who you are if you say things that sound like a threat to national security. They don't have the time to care about hundreds of millions of people for making jokes or sexual phone calls or other private conversations. They're not actually listening to you. The incident my opponent cites is unfortunate, but it does not affirm the resolution on its own. Especially since the action did not have to do with national security.2) The NSA is very effective. To this day, the NSA in 2013 stopped 54 terrorist efforts through their methods. They even cite that because they originally did not monitor calls in the US they were unable to find Khalid al-Mihdhar before he flew a plane into the World Trade Center. They knew where he was up until he made it to a safe house in the US [6]. Summary:My opponent does provide a convincing analysis, but at a second glance it doesn't necessarily hold up to the resolution. Upon further analysis of Civil Liberties, it may not seem unjust to abridge some of them in severe cases. Sources: [1] . http://hrlibrary.umn.edu...[2] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.un.org...[4] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org...[5] . https://constitutioncenter.org...[6] . https://www.wsj.com...[6.1] (for the people without a WJS subscription) . https://www.feinstein.senate.gov...