By Brendan O’Reilly

When did Congress repeal the Fourth Amendment? That right to a secure house, privacy…without a warrant. I thought this text was still included in America’s governing document? From what I have been hearing from the Bush Administration and right wing pundits, it no longer is.

Apparently a week after the 9/11 attacks, when the Senate Joint Resolution titled “Authorization for Use of Military Force” was signed into law by President Bush, the Constitution ceased to matter. I thought the Congress could not pass laws that violate the Constitution? But hey, what do I know? I’m not the United States Attorney General or anything.

The authorization resolution allowing the President to use force against al Qaeda reads: “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez have failed to provide even one example where it was “necessary and appropriate” to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Constitution.

“Do you expect our commanders in a time of war to go to a court while they’re trying to…surveil – survel the enemy? I don’t think so,” said White House Spokesman Scott McClellan uncomfortably and condescendingly at a press briefing.

I do think so mister McClellan. The law allows the National Security Agency to eavesdrop for up to 72 hours before requesting a warrant. There is no excuse not to follow the legal process.

While visiting the Brooke Army Medical Center in January, President Bush told reporters, “The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they’re calling and why.”

If the U.S. knows who these members of al Qaeda are, why are they so hard to find?

Anonymous sources have been telling news outlets like The Washington Post that the number of Americans who have had their conversations recorded or e-mails read by intelligence analysts since 9/11 without court authority is in the thousands. If thousands of American citizens and residents are really “suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates,” as President Bush has characterized those having their communications monitored by the program, we have much to fear. However, nearly all of those Americans who have had their privacy violated were dismissed as potential suspects.

President Bush has violated his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” The press should be unanimously opposed to warrant-lacking wiretapping. Journalists should be advocates for the people, not the White House.

Cable news stations have given into the White House spin, and have started referring to the domestic spying program as “terrorist surveillance.”

The New York Times, which held the story for a year due to White House pressure, has been accused of treason for revealing the wiretapping program and giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda, as if al Qaeda operatives really thought they were safe from wiretapping. If you asked me if suspected al Qaeda operatives were being monitored, I could have told you that. It was obvious. What was not obvious was that these wiretaps happen without evidence of probable cause ever being presented to a court.

“If this was happening in another country we’d go there to bring some justice,” said Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) when commenting on the wiretapping program during his address on the state of the union at the University earlier this month.

The congressman is right. We live under an oppressive leader who is denying American citizens their guaranteed liberties. Bush revealed his preference for unchecked power as early as December 2000 when he jokingly said at a dinner party, “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

This president is afraid of oversight, and I am afraid for our democracy. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts: a society who is willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserves neither and will lose both.