Let’s pretend that you subscribe to gun magazines and are an avid hunter in a small town that prizes hunting and other things that requires to a weapon. Let’s then pretend that you have permits for all the twenty-two guns you have in your possession.

But one day, you see that your name has been added to a list kept the government that brands you as a national security risk. Do you think this is just more Pacer columnist paranoia? Think again!

The House approved a bill that infringes on the civil rights of Americans and allows our president the right to continue with his warrantless wiretappings.

According to the Associated Press, the new bill is dressed up nicely and says that as long as the president notifies congressional leaders and House and Senate intelligence leaders, renews his certification every 90 days and get this, “believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved” that it’s alright. Did you catch the word “LATER” in this? Isn’t it too late after the wiretaps have been done and people’s privacy has been violated?

This is a slippery slope that our leaders are on and they’re using an even more slippery word as their basis for these sorts of actions.

After events of 9/11, the word “terrorism” conjures images of blown up buildings, hi-jacked planes and “swift and deliberate” actions on the part of our president in the minds of many. However, have there been any other “terrorist” attacks since then?

Those in favor of these drastic measures taken against the Americans can say that the “get tough” approach adopted by our leaders is actually working while those opposed to it can say “How do we know?” and both could potentially be correct in their thinking.

I believe that this new bill and the many that will follow in the wake of this disaster will prove to be the opening of a floodgate that will give our president wider and more far-reaching power than he was intended to have. I am not speaking of simply President Bush but future leaders who hold this position, as well.

I cringed as I thought of future leaders who, with this new power, took this to a new level and demanded more and more civil liberties in the name of a “safety” that can neither be proven nor disproven as existing.

At the risk of sounding like Fox Mulder’s long, lost cousin, if this bill and many others like it (and the Patriot Act) can be dressed up in stars and stripes of patriotism and defense Americans, where will it end? What more will we have to sacrifice to stay “safe” and exactly, what are we being kept safe from? Who will answer these questions for us?

We, as Americans, love to “crow” about our freedoms and liberties, but in these times we find ourselves in, we must constantly remind ourselves that it is the people who determine the leaders and they should be held accountable.

Remember the permit scenario I suggested at the beginning of this column? Imagine this list is what determines whether you’re eligible for a job or able to live in a certain area without registration as a national security risk. Do you think that this is a far-flung fantasy that can’t possibly happen in a “free” country?

I wonder what those founding fathers would think of the Patriot Act and the ongoing efforts of our leaders.