In a post 9-11 world, do we have the reasonable expectation that an American's privacy is protected against the eavesdropping of the NSA if we're on the phone to Kabul speaking with a member of al-Qaida?

That's the debate raging in Washington, D.C., recently, but instead of answers, we get what D.C. is famous for, politics!

Over a week ago, President Bush disclosed to the nation that in 2002 he authorized the National Security Agency to intercept telephone and e-mail communications between al-Qaida-linked individuals overseas and those they contacted in the United States. Such eavesdropping normally requires the permission of a secretive 11-member court set up under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I find it hard to believe that any of us have a problem with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or George Bush authorizing the NSA to tap conversations with suspected terrorists if we knew our security could be at risk.

All of these presidents have used wiretaps to assure our safety and never went to the now famous FISA court, before or after, to get permission. When time is of the essence and a "must know now" basis exists, as it did immediately after 9-11, I can't see why there is such a fuss by the New York Times and others.

I would have a problem if the government were using taps to spy on innocent citizens for political advantage or for uses other than our national security. But can someone please tell me what the big issue is with listening in on communications with known terrorists like OBL, Zarqawi, or even a run-of-the-mill jihadist?

I don't care if I was on the phone with Domino's Pizza in Tehran ordering the 555 deal. I'd rather our national security agents err on the side of caution. To do any less is ignoring the most fundamental duty of the federal government – to protect us from evil.

Face it: Having an absolute right to privacy when communicating with terror suspects is not worth signing a death warrant for another 3,000 innocent people. Keep in mind the FBI submitted a requested to the FISA court prior to Sept. 11, 2001, to search Moussawi's computer. That request was denied. That computer contained detailed plans of the 9-11 attacks. If we had been monitoring those conversations out of San Diego, originated by Moussawi to his contacts in Afghanistan, then we more than likely could have prevented the tragedy of 9-11.

The NSA has a need to know and investigate any and all contacts with known terrorists if they are to be responsible for keeping us safe from future attack. I mean, give me a break! Do you think someone calling from the United States to a suicide bomber in the Middle East is calling to chat about the new iPod they received for Ramadan? I doubt it and – equally important – why take the chance?

I end where I started: Do we have a reasonable expectation that if any person calls a suspected terrorist or a terror-connected entity in the Middle East – whether a stockbroker, doctor, mechanic or retired person – should they have the right to keep that conversation private and out of the reach of the NSA? My vote is a very resounding "No!"

Let's put the tools into the hands of those who would attempt to keep us safe and then thank them for using them in a legal and judicious manner.

There is a growing group of folks in America who want more than any mortal can deliver. They want total safety, total privacy and no one ever making a mistake.

I hate to break it to them, but that kind of utopia doesn't exist. Just ask the Israelis.