A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday found that 50 percent of Americans believe it's OK for the government to conduct surveillance without warrants on people suspected to have ties to terror abroad.

This blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution is just the latest in a series of events aimed at reducing the fundamental liberties we are guaranteed as Americans.

And to add further insult to injury, the Department of Justice's independent watchdog said Tuesday it does not have jurisdiction to investigate the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

Frankly, this program smacks of overreaching the bounds of executive power and invasion of privacy. The justification that if someone has nothing to hide, they needn't worry is not reassuring because that type of logic could allow for a host of intrusions into personal privacy. If this reasoning is accepted as completely valid, it would be a slippery slope in the name of individual freedoms.

Could it be that eavesdropping without warrants might be justified in the future for criminal investigations? Or for gain against political adversaries?

The fact of the matter is that such actions might lead to future abuses, whether incidental or intentional. It bears remembering that warrants are an important step in the investigative process and eliminating them means ignoring a necessary step in the justice system.
There can be methods to expedite the process, but to circumvent it altogether is hasty and sets a troubling precedent.

More troubling is the reaction, or lack thereof, by the public, only 29 percent of whom said that the issue will be "extremely important" to them in the upcoming 2006 election, according to the poll.

What happened to the rest of the country?

And to top it all off was the fact that 19 percent of those surveyed said the Bush administration "had not gone far enough" in restricting civil liberties. Domestic eavesdropping without warrants is a very serious issue that may be investigated by a congressional committee; therefore, encouraging further action to prohibit civil liberties would be rash and foolhardy.

The outcome of this debate holds far-reaching ramifications, which will affect everyone.