With Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation, announced almost immediately after Democrats took a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and after severe criticism from his own military officials and newspapers, tactics on the war on terror may see some changes, especially in Iraq. But regardless of who is in charge, the war on terror is clearly not going to end soon.

Here’s the problem: It seems the war on terror, in and out of Iraq, is a self-perpetuating conflict, with each victory on our side fueling more resentment and recruitment on the other, as well as bringing about a loss of friends and self-imposed isolation on the part of the United States.

In the name of safety, as potential terrorists become craftier and more invisible, Constitutional liberties and implied liberties such as the right to privacy and free speech may seem to become obstacles to the necessity of intelligence gathering and rooting out possible threats.

Thus, as the war on terror drags on, so does the potential for further erosion of Constitutional rights in the name of an unending and increasing need for protection. But once we let one freedom slide in the name of freedom’s defense, who’s to say where that will end?

This year has seen instances where Bush has shaped his desire to protect Americans into actions that many fear cost too much in loss of civil liberties.

Last December, Bush was forced to reveal that the National Security Agency, an intelligence arm of Bush’s executive branch, was secretly conducting wiretaps of international calls without warrants.

District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled this program unConstitutional in August, saying that the president was violating two integral parts of the Bill of Rights amended to the Constitution he swore to protect — the right to protection from warrantless search and seizure, or privacy, and the right to free speech.

“The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments,” Taylor wrote, “has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders as required by [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.”

She cited rulings made by other judges on this issue, one of whom stated that “unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.”

USA Today reported in May that the NSA was, with the help of major communication services like AT&T, gathering data on billions of calls in the U.S. to check for patterns that may indicate terrorist activity.

Where was the probable cause necessary to invade Americans’ privacy? Where will unchecked suspicion end if allowed in this country, especially within the already-decaying moral framework of society?

The president argued that such measures are vital in intercepting and thwarting potential attacks. He also argued about the need to find terrorists speedily, which taking the time to obtain a warrant may not allow. The U.S. Department of Justice argued that the president is using powers granted him, which allow him to act in such a way to protect America.

Sept. 11 illustrated that terrorism poses an undeniable threat, one that can rock our very world in an instant. But, as America fights this war, it must consider another war that must be fought alongside it — the war against compromise. Should Americans be content with compromising the right to communicate with each other without someone watching over their shoulders making sure there’s no funny business?

Bush argues that his administration targets only those linked to al-Qaeda. But why create a massive database that shines a harsh interrogatory light on the country’s regular citizens?

Whose victory is it when the actions of terrorists result in the erosion of the Bill of Rights in terms of breach of privacy or other Constitutional freedom? The more America reacts by clamping down on itself, the more terrorists have affected how much freedom the country has. Whose victory is it if they can use America’s own self-distrust, however justified, to their advantage?

But one might say, “I’ve got nothing to hide. Why should I care?”

Again, unchecked suspicion on part of a government that has every tool to pry into its own citizens’ lives will not end in an advance of freedom. That’s why the Founding Fathers put checks and balances into the Constitution — to prevent one branch of the government to teeter with too much power in grey-area situations just like this.

In the former Soviet Union, peoples’ telephone conversations were monitored, making them so uneasy about saying anything “sensitive” and becoming a vanishing “suspect” that they would jokingly say “just kidding” in the direction of the phone whenever they made a sensitive joke. The NSA’s mass monitoring of American citizens implies a step in this direction, where all become victims of unchecked suspicion.

This is not a call to end the war on terror or pull out of Iraq. The war on terror is a reality and so is the threat terrorists pose. America made the obligation to see Operation Iraqi Freedom to its fulfillment and must stick to that self-imposed obligation. The problem lies in a haze of intelligence versus privacy, safety versus rights. The call is for Americans to use extreme caution and diligence in protecting liberty.

The United States of America is a living miracle, and its citizens should guard what they have, not letting apathy or the heat of the moment strip from them the very rights that make them who and what they are.

Whatever the costs, as the war on terror continues, the Constitution should not be the casualty. It should be the definition of how America fights the war on terror, not an obstacle.