There has been much debate over the National Security Agency’s covert wiretapping and e-mail monitoring of American citizens. In the post-Sept. 11, 2001, environment, many Americans seem to have relaxed their sense of privacy, and the White House has found what it thinks it needs to preserve itself.

According to the administration, fast access to communications it deems suspect is necessary to safeguard against further terror attacks. This claim is bogus. A court is in place for that very purpose, and it is famed for its tendency to grant wiretap requests.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court received 1,758 applications for surveillance permission in 2004, and denied four of these requests. One of the four was resubmitted and approved by the court, and the government withdrew the other three. To quote the annual FISA report, "The court did not deny in whole or in part any application submitted by the government in 2004."

Still, the Bush administration seems resentful of having to ask for a second opinion. This petulant president is so enamored of his 37 percent approval rating that he feels empowered to proceed with any idea, legal or not, absent any of the checks and balances that were imposed on the office of the presidency in the beginning of the republic. If only for the flouting of the Constitution, regardless of the other facts of the case, the president’s impeachment should be considered.

This arrogant administration is so assured of its own righteous providence that any kind of process associated with its self-appointed directives is regarded as a nuisance and optional at its own discretion. The NSA’s rogue wiretapping is a symptom of an administration drunk on its own power, and to imagine this program hasn’t already been abused is the height of naiveté.

A bureaucracy is carrying out this initiative, and within any bureaucracy there are always zealous individuals who dedicate themselves to the proscribed mission, and add some component of their own individual vision. There is always an Ollie North, a John Poindexter, a Henry Kissinger who will overarch even a wrong-headed undertaking such as the secret wiretapping of American citizens. Agencies and organizations that have already been shown to have fallen under the purview of this insidious program of illegal wiretapping and e-mail monitoring include the Quakers and PETA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals). And it’s only going to get worse.

Early administration response to the leaking of the NSA wiretaps was a denial of the program’s existence. When the evidence became irrefutable, the administration started talking about limitations of the program, such as it only being used in international communications, and only with individuals in the United States who have "a clear link to al-Qaida." Now that even this backpedaling has proven to be another series of lies, a frustrated Bush administration has cast it to the court of public opinion, and to my utter astonishment, has found a level of acceptance among many Americans, mostly knee-jerk Bush apologists.

In defending the indefensible, they trot out the childish retort, "If you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about." There are numerous fallacies of logic here. One can keep the character of the debate in kindergarten-speak by turning the phrase on its ear and saying to the administration, "If you’re not doing anything wrong with your wiretaps, then you have nothing to worry about in seeking a warrant."

Add to that the subjective definition of the word "wrong," and the trite truism reveals its uselessness. Is it wrong for individuals to explore the possibility of their state’s secession? Is it wrong to take extreme measures to protect animal rights? Is it inherently wrong to protest the Bush War?

The debate gets elevated when you begin to examine the volume of correspondences that are being monitored under the current strategy. From what we know of the automated e-mail wide net fishing approach, the technique seems to be self-defeating. It is predicated on the appearance of keywords that indicate terrorist activity.

Anyone sending electronic mail that contains terrorist intent is going to be motivated to bury the actual sense of the communiqué in more innocuous language. Most of the mail getting copied and read are talking about how "bombed" the sender got on New Year’s Eve, or how Bob Dylan’s "Infidel" is one of his most underrated recordings.

The Boston Globe approximates the volume of e-mails that are passing through the net of possible perusal at more than 2 million per hour. That’s not national security. That’s paranoia. When you think of paranoid presidencies, you think of Nixon, and the comparisons of the Bush administration to the Nixon administration are stunning. Firstly, a lot of the same old players, notably Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, are setting the tone for the way the Bush White House does business.

Among the casualties of this poorly managed effort to protect us are our own civil liberties, and adherence to the ideals that are America’s charter. The war on terror is being fought by a shortsighted, secretive, and insular administration. It is a war that we are losing, and that we will continue to lose as long as this cabal of fruitcakes is in charge. Now, if you’ll pardon me, I must be going. I’m logging on to a half-dozen Islamic jihad Web sites this afternoon and checking out some books on bomb-making from the local library, just to add a little extra chum in the water.  

© 2006 Seacoast Online

###