Terrorist actions on Sept. 11 have left America feeling unprotected as our government busily looks for ways to ensure our security in the future. I pose the same question as John C. Calhoun when he asked, "Which is greater, liberty or security?" He felt that security was more important because security is essential to survival, liberty merely to progress. A society can survive without progress, but it cannot progress without surviving.

Calhoun thought that survival was the most basic and important need, but does the same principle apply in society 151 years later? Are we at a point where liberty is more important? Are we more concerned with what we have and how we are perceived by other countries than the freedoms we may actually lose? With the institution of national identity cards or travel permits we give up liberty to attain security. Should we maintain the way we currently handle airports, guns and mail distribution so we don't violate the liberties granted to every American by the Constitution? What tradeoffs is the American public willing to make in order to feel secure?

Americans want a safer America and an end to terrorism, but are we comfortable with the means we must employ in order to attain this security? When the security measures start to tread on individual Americans' way of life, our outlook will change. In theory, we like national identification cards as a means to help end terrorism, but when we have to apply for permission to travel across our own country, then security becomes an invasive practice and a violation of our First Amendment rights.

What is Congress doing about this? Which will they decide is better for America, security or liberty?