How does a nation, threatened by terrorists, balance respect for cherished civil liberties against the government's need to gain information and to maintain secrecy to protect us?

Daily press accounts remind us (though not frequently enough) of the toll the Iraq war -- an extension of the war on terrorism, according to President Bush -- exacts. Those accounts tell about the toll on the men and women who put their lives on the line daily and the toll on their families -- particularly the families of reservists and national guardsmen whose lives have been disrupted time and again in ways unimaginable when Bush ordered the invasion.

The three remaining presidential candidates argue about the future course of this struggle. Will we maintain a presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future, as Sen. John McCain supports? Or should we withdraw -- in a deliberate manner but by a date in the not-too-distant future, as Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton favor?

The Democrats do not accept the premise that dictates McCain's policy preference -- that leaving Iraq will render us increasingly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, the president and his administration attempt to convince us of progress in Iraq, though the criteria on which progress is measured seem to change with some frequency.

A panel of legal experts at Colby College recently discussed the war on terror in terms of more basic principles on which our nation was founded.

Maine law professor James Friedman discussed suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the right to require an official holding a person in custody to show the authority under which that prisoner was held or to release the prisoner -- a right considered so fundamental by the founding generation that it was written directly into the U.S. Constitution. Friedman decried the increase in executive authority in this area and others that have resulted from the way in which the Bush administration has waged the war on terrorism.

ABC's national legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg discussed the direction the Roberts' Supreme Court was taking on related cases. While not predicting the outcome of pending cases, she said the court has been moving steadily in a direction that supports executive actions over individual rights.

Greenburg noted that the leadership of the still relatively new chief justice and the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor by ideological conservative Samuel Alito have moved the court in a direction favoring government prerogative on these cases. (O'Connor is the only member of the court who had ever faced an electorate and who was thus more sensitive to popular sentiment.)

Another panelist, U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow of the Central District of California, said government response to the war on terrorism has disrupted the lives of individual citizens throughout the country -- not just those accused of crimes, but those caught up in increased governmental intrusion. She noted, for example, long delays in FBI background checks of innocent people, not because of anything in those individuals' files but because of the number and extent of those checks now required.

Chief U.S. District Judge George Singal of the District of Maine noted changing definitions of privacy that have resulted not only from the war on terrorism but also from modern technology and asked what we should expect in these times.

The panel's discussion was held as part of the events associated with the awarding of Colby's Morton A. Brody Distinguished Judicial Service Award, created in memory of the U.S. District Court judge and Waterville resident who died in 2000.

This year's winner was U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema from the Eastern District of Virginia, the judge who presided over the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th 9/11 terrorist.

In accepting Colby's honorary degree, Brinkema noted that, particularly in these troubled times, we have to choose words with care, we have to be certain that we rely on accurate facts in reaching decisions and we have to reason with well-constructed logic.

She said she fears that we use the words "war" and "terrorism" too loosely -- and that, as a result, certain government action is permitted that might not be otherwise. Similarly, she is concerned when a judge cannot trust that the facts presented by the government are accurate -- as they have proven not to be in recent instances. And she worries that we reach decisions based on emotional responses, not careful reasoning -- out of fear, not analysis.

Those are all sobering points for us all to consider as we examine the times in which we live.

L. Sandy Maisel is director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Colby College.