ALL of us who use telephones or any internet communications services – that is almost all e-mail, chat, video-chat, internet phone calls or document delivery – have been informed that we are potentially subject to spying on the part of United States intelligence agencies, particularly if our communication is international. We have just been informed that those responsible for the supervision of these programs, in the name of the people, were not fully informed of the extent of this massive system of surveillance. We have just been informed by those who govern that no one needs to worry, that we can be confident they are doing the right thing.

We have just been informed that the rights to privacy and expression, guaranteed in the Constitution and by federal law, must be partially abridged in order to protect us from enemies who hate the liberties and rights we have in this country.

We are only now hearing about all this, and no one knows what else has been going on, because the government must keep the defense of liberty secret, they say. Even the rules that ensure that all this is done in accordance with the law and respecting the rights of citizens – as the Obama administration and legislative leaders of both parties assure us has been the case – are secret.

The valiant columnist Glenn Greenwald, of the Guardian, has announced that there is much more, that what has been published is just the tip of the iceberg of what former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden has leaked about the massive secret spying program – which Daniel Ellsberg, who made public the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago, described as the most important leak in U.S. history.

The justifications are the same ones we have heard since September 11, 2001, although what is most noteworthy now is that a Democratic President, and a large number of Democratic Congress members who strongly criticized violations of individual privacy when George W. Bush was in office, are now defending these intrusions with the same rhetoric about protecting the country from terrorism.

The legendary journalist I.F. Stone advised all journalists who covered politics, "All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed."

In this instance, when a government’s lies are exposed, not telling the truth is justified as necessary for the defense of freedom, transparency and democracy, faced with the threat of an ever-present enemy. For example, National Intelligence director James Clapper admitted in an evasive answer to a direct question from a Senator who asked if the communications of millions of U.S. citizens had been spied upon. Clapper offered the least deceitful version of the truth he could.

The public is not very surprised by any of this and polls show mixed reactions. Some indicate that the majority are wiling to give up some of their liberties in exchange for public and national security. A Time magazine poll found that 54% of those questioned believed that Edward Snowden had done the right thing, while 30% thought the opposite. To confuse things, according to the same survey, 53% said he should be prosecuted, while 28% said no – although among those 18 to 34 years of age, the results were 43% against his prosecution, to 41% in favor. There is a statistical tie between those who approve of internal spying programs and those who do not.

What has been the most impacted is the credibility of the ruling class, although little remains of that. In a June 13 Gallup poll, confidence in Congress is down to 10%, ranking the legislative body last on a list of 16 institutions This is the lowest level of confidence Gallup has found for any institution on record, lower than big business (22%), banks (26%), newspapers and television news (23%) and organized labor (20%), among others. Those polled expressed the highest level of confidence in the military, 76%.

The debate unleashed is no doubt healthy, showing the lack of transparency and accountability of an immense, secret, increasingly powerful government.

Ellsberg wrote in the Guardian, June 10, "… to say that there is judicial oversight is nonsense – as is the alleged oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. Not for the first time – as with issues of torture, kidnapping, detention, assassination by drones and death squads – they have shown themselves to be thoroughly co-opted by the agencies they supposedly monitor."

High level officials and veteran intelligence agents have said the same recently. While some commentators have noted the continuity of Bush policies in this area, which were once strongly denounced.

The debate continues in the United States and other countries, as well. European governments and Asian civic and political groups have requested clarification from the U.S. government about the scope and legality of the right it claims to tap and spy on anyone on the planet.

In Mexico and the rest of Latin America, everyone can assume that their private internet communications are subject to secret U.S. surveillance. Does Washington have this right? Does the U.S. have the permission or cooperation of other governments? Are citizens informed?