Prior to her talk at Bridgewater College, scheduled for Thursday night, ACLU President Nadine Strossen questioned elements of the Bush administration’s surveillance program by posing an intriguing question.

“If Hillary Clinton were president, would they (conservatives) feel comfortable with (the electronic surveillance program)? I don’t think so,” Strossen said.

Granted, if given the authority over America’s national security apparatus, Sen. Clinton might be tempted to use it to keep track of Bill. However, if President Hillary Clinton had been in office when a 9-11 attack occurred, one assumes she would use the program to listen in on America’s enemies.

The ACLU president said she is worried that the administration would expand warrantless wiretaps to “anti-war activists, environmental groups,” and others.

Right, listening to some environmentalist discuss the travails of the snail darter with another environmentalist more concerned about the White Spotted Owl would make a fascinating day.

“We have to take at face value that the communications the National Security Agency is monitoring meet the proper criteria,” Ms. Strossen said.

True, in a secret government program monitoring terrorists, there has to be an element of trust. But Americans are more trusting of the NSA professionals than, say, the ACLU. The ACLU, after all, is the organization that sent out “monitors” to check on the Minutemen patrolling the southern border and ignored the illegal aliens crossing into this nation. The ACLU always seems to enjoy obstructing law-abiding persons while defending criminals.

One trusts that the NSA employees are doing the best to track down, listen to and constantly monitor suspicious overseas calls. There is not one bit of evidence to suggest this surveillance program has been misused. Nor is there a shred of evidence to suggest that, if the ACLU lawsuit against the program was upheld, it would make the country any safer.