In theory, the unprecedented surveillance of the the American public by the Bush Administration is justified by the idea that it will make us safer. We swap our private phone calls, our biometric data, even our bodily integrity for the notion that the government will thereby be able to find and prosecute terrorists, and protect us from harm.

But, according to the LA Times, the increase of government surveillance has not resulted in the conviction of more terrorists:

A recent study showed that the number of terrorism and national security cases initiated by the Justice Department in 2007 was more than 50% below 2002 levels. The nonprofit Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which obtained the data under the Freedom of Information Act, found that the number of cases brought declined 19% in the last year alone, dropping to 505 in 2007 from 624 in 2006.

By contrast, the Justice Department reported last month that the nation's spy court had granted 2,370 warrant requests by the department to search or eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and spies in the U.S. last year -- 9% more than in 2006. The number of such warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has more than doubled since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The department also reported a sharp rise in the use of national security letters by the FBI -- from 9,254 in 2005 to 12,583 in 2006, the latest data available. The letters seek customer information from banks, Internet providers and phone companies. They have caused a stir because consumers do not have a right to know that their information is being disclosed and the letters are issued without court oversight.

The trade off does not appear to be working in favor of the American public or the Constitution. And the above data appears to leave out the issue of wiretaps performed without warrants or court approval at the behest of the White House. Are we trading our precious freedoms for a hill of magic anti-terrorism beans?

Hat Tip - Talking Points Memo