Bush & amp; Co. stepping on our liberties

WASHINGTON -- Who shall guard against the guardians?
It was the most important question posed in the pursuit of democracy and the concept of a free republic. Over the millennia since it was first asked, the answer never has been as clear as since the founding of this nation -- a constitutionally protected press, the ultimate overseer of the people's business.
But President Bush and his minions seem to believe in times of peril that not even the press, prized as it is by the First Amendment, has the right to question the actions of the guardian, even when they clearly skirt the edge of constitutionality. Governmental intrusions on the privacy of citizens without normal safeguards against abuse are perfectly within the wartime rights of the president, and that includes the war on terrorism, the familiar argument goes.
What is more, even the disclosure of these impingements -- tapping telephones and monitoring e-mails and perusing bank transactions all without judicial sanction -- can be considered treasonous. Newspapers that do so are subject to prosecution. At least that is the assertion -- actually, the demand -- of a claque of pre-1787 types on Capitol Hill who think "constitutional" is something one does every morning before beginning the day. The protests have become just a bit too shrill for innocence.
Bush's pitch
The president has given us the assurance that he and those under him can be trusted to do the right thing, that no honest, non-terrorist citizen of the republic has anything to fear. There will be no abuse of any of these programs. So go to bed and don't worry. That's easy enough for you to say, Mr. President. But what about those assigned to carry out your orders? Are they as honest and as diligent in their adherence to constitutional principles?
How in the world would we know? Without any oversight other than by those administering the programs, there is no way. The normal checks that protect us all are utterly missing from these exercises. There is serious danger under the circumstances that in the zeal to get those faceless enemies that we are being told constantly threaten our existence, we are doing their work for them -- actually limiting our freedoms about as much as any terrorist could hope to accomplish.
There is a reason that police must seek warrants in criminal investigations, and the same reasons apply in hunting terrorists -- who are criminals, after all. Following normal procedures to safeguard our civil rights is what this country is all about, and the price we pay for that may be expensive now and then.
Certainly there are times when the press's responsibilities under the First Amendment require self- (if not official) censorship, when information that would be utterly detrimental to the welfare of the nation should not be revealed. To disclose battle plans or endanger vital intelligence operations would be the height of irresponsibility. The newspapers that broke the stories about banking and electronic surveillance are fully aware of the difference between legitimately sensitive operations and those that are avoiding the procedures long established to protect the rights of citizens. These are general fishing expeditions that may or may not have produced anything but a huge data bank of information about the private business of Americans.
Monitoring banking
Besides, those who would attack this nation are not stupid. Osama bin Laden and his ilk understand that normal telecommunications systems aren't safe, that banking channels are being monitored. There is little evidence that the programs have produced results. But again, the real question is whether Congress or the courts have properly monitored the programs -- not whether they are effective.
Congress specifically enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to expedite eavesdropping warrants. The administration suddenly decided it had the authority to bypass a particular court and to monitor calls to or from overseas locations without approval. Disclosure of this decision did not endanger national security anymore than the revelation that long-established procedures for tracking banking transactions had been ignored.
Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.