I am simply framing the debate. Too many folks run around acting as if the Founders never intended for national security issues to allow curtailment of rights. And that simply isn't true.
Once that matter is addressed, then we can look at the issues as to whether they make sense and whether the security benefits of a proposal or law outweight the incursions of rights, and what safeguards are needed, or if the law is just not right. But when the alarmists get going full speed, they tend to drown out reasoned debate.
Ok, and where did the Founders ever say that they believed there were situations where our inalienable rights, as codified in the Bill of Rights, could be alienated?
I do know that the government didn't have the guts to declare war, and that the suspension of rights will never go away. The "war on (some) terror" will never be over as long as politicians can derive power and control from it.
As your referenced Article 1, Section 9 applies ONLY to Habeas Corpus, why do you pluralize the word "right" when you speak of curtailments? ONLY THAT ONE RIGHT may be curtailed and then only in cases of rebellion or INVASION, when it is OBVIOUS that the public safety requires it, and that is a determination that should be made by the CONGRESS, not by the executive. Especially not by As*croft. BTW, except for the infiltration of homicidal hijackers, we have NOT been invaded. And a proper enforcement of the provisions of the BoR will surely deter the most ardent invader, anyway!