Our media colleagues* can use adopt the "terrorist surveillance program" language promoted by the Bush administration if they want to but it seems illogical. The usage accepts the notion that only "terrorists" are being spied upon, which, even if you don't think the program is an abuse of power, seems strange. Really, only "terrorists" are being targeted? No one else is swept up by mistake? And if we know they're "terrorists" why in heck are they running loose? What's wrong with "domestic spying program"? Seems a bit more apt to me. Not to mention mighty lazy of people to simply pick up the government's language, again.
*The Arizona Republic, in an editorial:
If Bush's political opponents ever thought for a moment that he might cower defensively in the face of their fury over domestic "spying," they were dissuaded of that silly notion on Tuesday.
Without question, Bush was at his most animated and determined when speaking of the National Security Agency's controversial terrorist surveillance program.
*The San Antonio Express-News, in a news report:
The president called on Congress to renew the USA Patriot Act to fight terrorism, and he defended a terrorist surveillance program that allows the government to eavesdrop without court order or warrants.
*The AP: At least one Democrat left saying he had a better understanding of legal and operational aspects of the anti-terrorist surveillance program. But he said he still had a number of questions.