We don't want to spy on terrorists, we don't want to kill them, we don't want to deport them. What do we want?

Do we actually want to defeat terrorism? Honestly, do we? I know we talk a good game about standing up to the men of terror and letting freedom shine, and all the rest of the worthy, if yellowing, clichés. But do we mean it. Do we really want to stand up to the men of terror, or do we just want to leave them to go on their merry way, flying planes into our buildings, and blowing up our trains and buses and hacking us to death in the street?

From the moral outrage pouring out of the papers this morning, you could be forgiven for thinking NSA “whistle-blower” Edward Snowdenhad just exposed Barack Obama as an al-Qaeda sleeper agent. Obama’s the new Nixon, a threat to our freedom. Why? Because apparently he’s been conducting surveillance of international terrorists.

The fact that, on the surface, the shadowy practices Snowden has exposed appear to have been entirely legal under the Patriot Act has been lost. As has the fact they were introduced by the Bush administration, were done so with the bipartisan approval of Congress, and were the subject of Congressional and judicial oversight.

The problem is that the rest of us didn’t know about it. Until this week we hadn’t heard of Prism, the ultra-sophisticated computer system that allows the US government to monitor online communications across the globe.

But frankly, why the hell should we have heard of it? That’s the whole point of covert surveillance. The clue is in the name.

It’s as if the whole world has suddenly turned into Alex Jones, the crazed conspiracy theorist who hijacked the Sunday Politics show yesterday. The liberal and conservative commentariat has joined in unholy alliance, and is now roaming the airwaves condemning this dangerous assault on democracy.

What they’re ignoring is that this is actually how democracy works. Even in a free society, the state has to have some secrets. The means and methods by which it tracks terrorists should, I’d suggest, be one of them. Should those means and methods be subject to scrutiny? Yes. Should that scrutiny come from our democratically elected representatives? Yes. Should the powers being scrutinised also be the subject of checks and balances from the courts? Yes. In other words, precisely what has been happening with Prism.

On September 11, 2001, 3,000 innocent people were killed in the worst terrorist massacre in history. And since then the liberal Left and libertarian Right have condemned and opposed and criticised and attempted to undermine every single measure put in place to ensure that atrocity can never be repeated.

First there was the invasion of Afghanistan, instigated to deny the terrorists a safe haven for the planning of future 9/11 style attacks. And it was opposed, and dubbed “an illegal war”. So laws such as the Patriot Act were introduced, designed to place the fight against terror on a sound legal footing. And they were opposed. Then Guantánamo was opened. And that was of course opposed. So military tribunals were suggested. And they were opposed as well.

Then, to avoid invasions and ground incursions at all, drone strikes were introduced. And they were opposed. When evidence of aggressive interrogation techniques emerged they – rightly – were opposed. So covert electronic surveillance techniques were introduced. And as we’ve seen, they are now being opposed.

Attempts to tackle terrorism at its roots, by programmes such as Prevent, were also tried. And they were opposed for stigmatising the Muslim community. So last week calls went out for the Muslim community to police itself. And they were opposed, as some sort of informer’s charter.

Terrorist suspects were arrested, and placed in jail without trial. And that was opposed. So they were released with tags and stringent bail conditions. And that was opposed. So the government tried to deport them. And that was opposed too.

We don’t want to invade them, we don’t want to assassinate them, we don’t want to incarcerate them, we don’t want to monitor them, we don’t want to educate them, we don’t want to deport them. So just how do we want to confront and defeat these men who want us dead?

“The rule of law,” goes the cry. “The rule of law should be both our sword and shield in the war on terror.” But we don’t want the laws. We don’t want the means of gathering evidence to prosecute people under the laws. And when someone like Edward Snowden pops up, possibly breaking the law himself, and by doing so undermines the very methods used to prosecute terrorists using legal methods, we laud him as a hero of our times.

As we speak Edward Snowden’s former colleagues are peering at computer screens, listening intently to headphones or sitting in an unmarked van, in some dirty, dangerous street in Pakistan, desperately searching for the clue that will prevent another 9/11. Meanwhile Snowden himself is sitting in his well-appointed Hong Kong hotel room, under the protective wing of the world’s largest totalitarian state, waiting for his next interview and round of room service.

Stand up to the men of terror? Don’t make me laugh.