POLITICS - The Shadow of Orwell

Terrorist surveillance program. Consider those three words for a moment. Who could be opposed to a terrorist surveillance program? No one. The operative question is how such a program should function. Who should be monitored? What guidelines, procedures and protections should govern the program? By using this term in a demagogic fashion, Bush is explicitly charging that if a person objects to wiretapping American citizens without a warrant he or she is opposed to penetrating terrorist operations. With such talk, Bush and his aides are engaging in — dare I say it — an Orwellian exercise.

They are crassly exploiting the rhetoric of fear. The critics of the warrantless wiretapping okayed by Bush are not saying that they desire no terrorist surveillance program. Yet Bush presents the issue as a harsh either/or — just as he did with the war in Iraq. Prior to the invasion, he claimed that the choice was either to mount a full-scale military attack against Saddam Hussein's WMD-loaded nation or do absolutely nothing, even though others advocated more aggressive and intrusive inspections and perhaps limited military action.

Dick Cheney has gone even further down the Orwell highway, equating criticism of the no-warrant eavesdropping with "the outrageous proposition that we ought to protect Al Qaeda's ability to communicate as it plots against America." In doing so, the vice president recasts expressions of constitutional concern as active protection of Al Qaeda. Give me another word for this — other than Orwellian.

Now ponder the frightening logic behind these statements and see how easy it can be stretched. If you do not support, say, the open-ended detention in secret jails of American citizens suspected of terrorism without any charges, then you are opposed to the terrorist apprehension program — and you are obviously protecting the ability of Al Qaeda operatives to concoct schemes to kill Americans and destroy this country.

From "Orwell Again" by David Corn, TomPain Common Sense

The key sentences are, "The critics of the warrantless wiretapping okayed by Bush are not saying that they desire no terrorist surveillance program. Yet Bush presents the issue as a harsh either/or — just as he did with the war in Iraq."

Correct, we who are criticizing the surveillance are not saying we want to end the surveillance program. What we are saying is that, when it comes to American citizens, our rights under the Constitution must be protected, especially when Congress has provided a means to do so.

What we object to is the Administration ignoring the law in the name of protecting America. As if one part of the Constitution overrides all others. As if protecting citizens against abuses of government is not protecting America.