> Here is the rub, if government does nothing and we get attacked people will complain. If government steps up and works to prevent an attack, people complain.

That's an inane justification for destroying our constitution. If people complain either way, but only one way destroys the constitution, why choose the worse one? Why would people complain if gov't prevents an attack? That makes no sense. I'm not sure you can call it "preventing an attack" when it's the gov't that is attacking us.

> Where is the balance?

There is no balance. The gov't is off the rails when it comes to expanding their budget and justifying expending law enforcement powers for the miniscule chance of a terrorist attack.