A Surveillance State Too Secret For Oversight

Most of the comparisons between our government and George Orwell's "1984", that aren't playful, are little more than hyperbole that is juvenile and hackneyed.  We don't have thought crimes, and citizens aren't the property of the state.  That being said I'm going to suspend my better judgement, because I feel that buried within all of those hackneyed comparisons is an honest point.  One that is ugly, perhaps clumsy, and that... yes... may even violate my good taste! Yet it is my belief that a narrow parallel being drawn reflects something developing in our state, just as much as it has often reflected a clumsy critique of that state when understood too broadly.  When "Big Brother" is watching in "1984", I think it is appropriate for us to ask how different the apparatus of the surveillance state we now live in is from the one portrayed in the book.  I'm not asking whether we could end up with something like the surveillance state in the book, but what are the real differences between the kind of surveillance state they have and the one we have as it stands now.  The Fourth Amendment prohibits search and seizure with out a warrant, despite this fact our government argues that it has a right to collect the emails of those who aren't under suspicion.  I've yet to hear an interpretation of the Constitution defending these programs in their current form that respects the rule of law.  While I might not be as concerned about the rule of law when some one engages in civil disobedience, whether my government respects the rule of law when it comes to the Constitution is an entirely different matter.  We live in a state that is too secret for oversight.  One that has eliminated many of the opportunities for oversight.  No one can bring a suit who can't prove that they've been spied upon, and no one knows if they've been spied upon.  Senators aren't allowed to bring legislation to the floor addressing these programs because they are classified.  Instead of simply classifying the means and methods of these programs, the net of secrecy is cast as wide as possible to include any account of the kinds of sacrifices we are making in terms of our privacy.  The system our nation was predicated on wasn't based on trust.  It was based on checks and balances that involved a citizens access to the courts making these determinations, or the ongoing legislative oversight by their elected representatives.  One that wasn't different in principle from the notion Reagan put forward when he said, "Trust, but Verified".  I've heard Lindsey Graham and others argue that if the government wants to read their email then that's just fine with them.  Good... why don't you go ahead and forward your email for them to read.  This argument ignores the fact that the space for individuals to exist separate from the state, is threatened when their phone calls or emails are seized without warrant.  What this argument fails to understand is that we are not a collective hive, and my liberty isn't something that you can sacrifice because you wouldn't be bothered.  That is not up for democratic debate.  The Bill of Rights is unconcerned with how you think technology has changed, or what kinds of my liberty you are willing to sacrifice.  To suggest otherwise is to invite the comparison to the book, at least in respect to the surveillance state.  A surveillance state that is too secret for oversight.  One that is no longer held accountable to the checks and balances of the judiciary,  elected representatives, or the innocent citizens whose privacy it violates.