Big Brother Is Listening

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Amendment IV, United States Constitution

It's basic knowledge to anyone who took history class in school: if the government wants to search your house or listen in on your phone calls or read your E-mail, they have to explain to a judge why it should be allowed and to get a warrant. It's what separates America from a police state in which the government can search anyone and wiretap anything just because they feel like it.

The revelation that the Bush Administration routinely taps the private communications of hundreds and possibly thousands of American citizens without bothering to get warrants as required by the very bedrock of our civil society should scare the pants off anyone who cares about democracy.

After a bit of hemming and hawing, President Bush admitted to ordering the secret spying and rolled out his usual litany of excuses:

1. It was because of 9/11.
2. It was done to protect American lives.
3. It's all the media's fault for blowing the whistle on the scheme.

The Republicans have already begun the standard procedure of attacking the messenger, denouncing the New York Times for publishing the story in the first place. But the Times sat on the story for a full year before running it, giving the Administration ample warning. Another GOP tack is that since we are dealing with terrorists, the usual legal niceties don't apply. Displaying a staggering indifference to the very notion of freedom, Senator Trent Lott said, "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that."

Bush insisted that all this snooping was done on (unnamed) terrorist suspects in line with (secret) legal opinions, so it's all right. But why should we believe him? After all, he said he has the authority to do whatever he wants in this regard, including:

• Jailing suspects indefinitely without bothering to prove their guilt
• Shredding the Geneva Conventions and simple humanity to sanction the torture and even murder of prisoners
• Exporting suspects to other countries to have confessions tortured out of them
• Setting up secret prisons in other countries to make suspects "disappear"
• Compiling intelligence files from spying on antiwar groups, then maintaining such files in violation of laws requiring their destruction 90 days after determination that the subject is not a threat

And so on and so forth. And now we have the President of the United States claiming the unlimited power to spy on our private communications - just because he can. Abuse of power after abuse of power has been revealed, and the President has answered every inquiry with a bland smile and an exhortation to just trust him.

Bush has shown us over and over again what contempt he has for the basic rule of law in America. If the law prevents him from doing whatever he wants, he doesn't try to amend the law, he just breaks it.

The really frightening part of this latest exposure stems from the fact that the Administration already has a process in place for approving security-related wiretaps. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court exists for examining government requests for tapping suspects in national-security cases; indeed, it is a virtual rubber stamp for such requests. But Bush ignored the FISA court entirely, instead ordering the spying unilaterally and giving the job to the National Security Agency - which, by the way, is legally barred from doing such things domestically. So why didn't Bush go to FISA? The unsettling suspicion is that the wiretaps have nothing at all to do with terrorism or al Qaeda or national security.

If that is indeed the case, who is he spying on? Antiwar groups? Political dissenters? Prominent Democrats? The Kerry campaign? Does anyone in the White House remember that this is how Watergate started?

Bush and his minions claim they are protecting American freedom by their actions. In addition to spitting on the Constitution, they appear to have forgotten the words of Benjamin Franklin, one of our most prominent Founding Fathers: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."