It's easy to get caught up in the omnipresent war-terrorism-security rhetoric. But we should all take a deep breath occasionally and ask a few simple questions when evaluating how public officials are spending millions of taxpayer dollars in response to what they tell us is a serious threat to our way of life.

What's important? Why is it important? What does it mean? What are the potential consequences?

The larger question, of course, is what constitutes "homeland security" in a democratic society. By definition, the majority of the people in a democracy decide.

However, we doubt that question was at the top of the list for most American voters when they last elected their government representatives. Public officials and their appointees are deciding, from thepresident on down. Their decisions will affect the way we live - especially in the nation's capital - for years to come.

At this point, federal and local government efforts to "secure the homeland" have probably been most visible in the District of Columbia. While official Washington has been security conscious - some might say overly so - for many years, recent increases in security measures call into question whether government officials are protecting the public or unduly isolating themselves from the citizenry.

The capital of the free world's "official" corridors now boast enough visibly vigilant, armed law enforcement officers to begin rivaling the look and feel of Madrid under Gen. Francisco Franco's dictatorial regime in Spain.

Just try taking your concerns to your elected representatives without first having at least your personal dignity violated before you can get through the door - and don't even think about it unless you have some form of photo identification with you. In the current climate, all members of the public have become suspect, until proven otherwise.

Can you imagine the temerity of American citizens wanting to enter public buildings to interact with their government?

Questions about security efforts in the nation's capital go beyond government buildings. The Metropolitan Police Department's resources have been stretched thin in many crime-ridden residential neighborhoods for years, while federal concerns siphon personnel and tax dollars from a law enforcement agency whose main purpose was meant to be the local community's protection.

Are law enforcement officials too myopic to see that terrorists can use the same clandestine networks employed by traffickers of illegal drugs and stolen vehicles? Police officials have long acknowledged that those networks help drive most major crime in the District, yet there appears to be no effort to shut them down as part of "homeland security."

Instead, paranoid government officials seem to be spending precious tax dollars on security measures such as bunker-like command centers, to protect their own position in the face of enemy attack - even if the "enemy" is merely an American with differing political views. The harsh - and probably unconstitutional - treatment of many political protesters is a case in point. Unfortunately, the taxpayers will eventually bear the brunt if pending lawsuits against the city vindicate protesters for exercising their rights.

It will be up to the voters to decide at the ballot box whether the "secure" homeland being created at public expense is what we want America to be.

Copyright 2003, The Common Denominator