In 1936 a group of foreign journalists was traveling with one of the fascist leaders in the Spanish Civil War, General Emilio Mola Vidal. The general was marching on Madrid with four columns of soldiers. When asked by one of the journalists which of the four columns would lead the assault on Madrid, he responded “the fifth column” — the group of clandestine nationalists who had been living in the city for months, plotting its fall.

The term “fifth column” has since come to symbolize the “traitors in our midst” or the “enemy within.” Not surprisingly, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, some people have begun to suggest that there is a fifth column alive and well in the United States today. Unlike the Spanish fifth column, however, this one is by no means clandestine. This American fifth column, go the accusations, is composed of those among us who have critically considered the possible causes of and our government’s response to the events of Sept. 11. In other words: liberals.

In a now infamous column in the New Yorker, Susan Sontag, the darling of the left, wrote of the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11 that “if the word ‘cowardly’ is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others.” She went on to write that “whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday’s slaughter, they were not cowards.” Inflammatory? Provocative? Certainly.

But treasonous? According to Andrew Sullivan, New York Times Magazine columnist and liberal basher extraordinaire, that’s exactly what leftists like Susan Sontag are. In a recent column he wrote that “the decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead — and may well mount a fifth column.” After “decadent” leftists like Anthony Lewis demanded a retraction, Mr. Sullivan qualified (sort of) his accusation by explaining he didn’t mean liberals like Mr. Lewis and Ms. Sontag were actual saboteurs, but that their “nihilism runs so deep they want terrorism to win.”

There may very well be a functional fifth column in America today, but it’s not who Mr. Sullivan thinks it is. The greatest threat posed to this country is not coming from those people who are challenging the “information” (read: propaganda) coming out of the White House, the Pentagon and the media.

The threat is coming in the form of Operation Enduring Freedom’s domestic accoutrements and by their supporters — spanning the ideological gamut — who wish to silence those whom they feel aren’t cheerleading quite loudly enough or wrapping themselves in a large enough flag. It may be a fifth column motivated by good intentions, but it represents a danger nonetheless.

It is true that the world became a different place on Sept. 11. As such, we should expect that this new world will be governed by new rules, and some restrictions on our civil liberties are to be expected and, indeed, are entirely appropriate.

But, to paraphrase a particularly poignant headline in last week’s Onion, to what extent should we be willing to sacrifice our freedom in pursuit of liberty? I daresay not as far as the Bush administration would like us to.

A perfect example is the pernicious Strengthening and Uniting America Act, which passed — without a sunset provision — 96-1 in the Senate (Wisconsin Democrat and maverick Russ Feingold was the lone voice of reason).

This bill, which rolls back many critical checks on law enforcement, was hastily approved with only perfunctory debate, which makes me wonder, if it’s OK to do away with, among other things, judicial review of wiretaps today, then what is to stop the government from doing away with those pesky Miranda rights tomorrow?

And the Strengthening and Uniting America Act is but a small part of the campaign. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice recently issued a “request” that the media no longer air statements by Osama bin Laden, ostensibly because they could be carrying “hidden messages.”

Unfortunately, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any credible proof that Mr. bin Laden is sending secret messages in his statements, a point the administration was later forced to concede. In an even more egregious incident, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer recently said of a talk show host’s controversial remark that, in times like these, “people have to watch what they say and watch what they do.”

Every day I watch a few of the countless press briefings on CSPAN and listen to politicians tell me ad nauseam that the righteousness of our cause will ensure our victory. I find myself wondering what kind of questions I’d pose if I were at one of these briefings.

I think I would ask at what price our victory will come. I would ask if our government’s overzealous attempts to protect our freedoms may not ultimately undermine them. I would ask if it isn’t possible that the greatest threat we are facing is from the people who are supposed to be protecting us. I would ask why this fifth column, however unwitting it may be, is not being treated as the very real threat to America that it is. >Chris McCall ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in German and political science.