The Bill of Rights vs. National Security

[Ed. Note: I never got around to finding a link for "US AG" before posting the article. It now links to Wikipedia.]

This past weekend, the US AG made the statement in regards to the right of the press that is protected under the First Amendment:

"...[I]t can't be the case that that right trumps over the right that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity," he said. "And so those two principles have to be accommodated."

Where do you draw the boundary between liberty and security? Is the Bill of Rights absolute, or are there gradations of rights within the parameters laid down by that document? If "National Security" trumps the First Amendment, 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes'[1], as they say?

I, personally, find myself pondering the tenets of utilitarianism: the 'right' is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. I look at this argument, and recognizing a slippery slope with no visible bottom, I grow concerned. I believe we've already covered this example on this blog, but I'll repeat it to satisfy my own curiosity.

A surgeon has five terminal patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a heart, and two need kidneys. A sixth, non-terminal patient just came in to have his appendix removed. Should the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the others?


[1] Loosely translated: Who watches the watchmen?