I am now officially a terrorist sympathizer

... or at least I shall likely be termed such after writing this piece.

We now see Republicans joining Democrats in speaking out against the NSA wiretaps. This is already causing further outrage and umbrage among the radical Right wing. The defenders of the wiretaps, as used on Americans, make some very compelling arguments which many are loathe to counter. One of the most stirring ones, repeated in almost all of the conservative blogs, was articulated by President Bush himself, when he said that if a terrorist was making a phone call to somebody in the United States, even an American citizen, "we want to know what they're saying." That sentiment is pretty hard to argue with, right? I mean, if there really is an American citizen on the phone with a terrorist in Afghanistan or wherever, we could be facing another attack like those of 9/11. So there's really no question that we all want our intelligence operatives listening in and protecting us, no matter how that is achieved, right?

I'm sad to say that I must come before you here today and tell you that the answer is, in fact, no.

You see, the idea of an American living right here in our country and plotting with our enemies to deliver horrible attacks on us defines one of the worst monsters we are able to imagine. When confronted with the potential existence of a person so evil, so dangerous, so foreign to every concept of decency and civilization which most of us take for granted, it is only natural for many of us to think, "rights be damned. We need to get this bastard!" And unfortunately for us all, that is the path to madness. We've dealt with monsters before.

This is clearly a good point in the discussion to talk about the fundamental rights of American citizens and the original purpose of those rights. In an ideal situation, the protections we receive from the Bill of Rights are there to serve the innocent, honest American citizen. They are there to ensure that those who are doing nothing wrong will not be incorrectly abused, arrested and punished by the government for illegal, immoral reasons. However, in order for those rights to have any meaning whatsoever, and for them to last throughout the ages, they must apply to everyone equally - even the monsters.

When Charles Manson was arrested, oh so long ago, the media brought before the American group consciousness a truly horrific beast. Here was a man so evil, so lacking in any of the traits of a civilized being that people everywhere -even many of those most fiercely opposed to the death penalty - wanted to see him put into a grave. He was simply too horrible to contemplate and having him continue to exist in our midst seemed unacceptable. But the long arm of the law had to do things according to the book. Manson was given every inch of his constitutionally assured rights in the handling of his arrest, his trial, his conviction and his sentence - death. But when the death penalty was done away with in court, Charlie was one of the benefactors and his fate was changed to a lifetime stay in the crowbar motel. This made many people, particularly the friends and family of his victims, quite sad. There were quite a few of them who would gladly have lined up to see him torn limb from limb on the rack with molten lead being poured into his entrails.

But that's not how we do things in America. Everyone, be they ever so monstrous, gets the same rights and recourse to the law.

And what protections are we speaking of specifically? In the case of these wiretaps, we're talking about the Fourth Amendment. To wit:

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.

Notice the single word I highlighted - papers. What does that mean? I'm reminded of a scene from the movie "The Princess Bride" where the kindly grandfather has brought over a book to read to his sick grandson. The boy looks disappointed and says, "a book?"

That's right... a book. When I was your age, television was called books.

Well, back in the nearly alien seeming times of the founders, they had some things which were even more odd. You see, back in the day, e-mails and cell phone conversations and faxes were called "papers." The term was very common, as written about extensively by John Jay, author of the Federalist Papers, and it referred to a person's private letters, correspondence, journals or diaries. People back in those times used mysterious devices known as "pens" to scratch marks on flat pieces of parchment known as "paper." I know this will sound absurd to our younger readers, raised in an era of electronic miracles, but it was true. And people were very concerned about their privacy and keeping control of their "papers." Our phone calls and e-mail, blogs and such in the modern age are our version of our "papers." And if they had existed at the time of the Constitution's writing, they would have been included.

Many apologists for the wiretaps will also say, "Bah. Who cares? If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about." Oh, really? I don't suppose you noticed reports that our intelligence agencies have been keeping tabs on Americans who engage in anti-war protests or free speech marches, did you? If you are somebody who is doing that, and the government starts checking you out simply because you were making phone calls to your brother-in-law in Afghanistan, you don't think that's going to get handed over and result in you being on some sort of list? Just running a blog like this one or Running Scared has probably already drawn unwanted attention. Two of the people who signed up for direct e-mail delivery of my blogs posts have e-mail addresses that end in "@pentagon.mil" Coincidence? Maybe.

Nobody wants to see an American who is conspiring with foreign Jihadists to perpetrate horrific attacks upon our country get away with it. That's a given. But we've already seen reports on how the vast majority of these wiretaps lead to dead ends - ordinary citizens engaging in ordinary conversations on mundane topics. They have to keep their right to privacy, or every other right is eventually endangered. And if we are to keep the system intact, assuring their right to be "secure in their papers" means guarding that right for everyone - even the monsters.