There are a couple of other reasons.

Reasons (not acceptable excuses, but at least understandable) to break the law about wiretapping:

• It’s safer, legally, to deceive the judicial system, media, law enforcement, and government watchdogs outside of a specific legal context than to deceive one judge within a legal context (obtaining a warrant). The NSA does not always want to reveal the source of the information justifying a warrant, but judges frequently want to know. Rather than choose between deceiving a judge or revealing NSA involvement in a case, the NSA bypasses the court system altogether. It's the same rationale behind not swearing in someone providing testimony; there's less legal danger if they're caught lying.
• Obtaining a warrant creates a trail. In these days, when you simply need to move a citizen out of the country to remove their rights, obtaining a warrant simply makes it easier for a suspect’s family, lawyer, or the media to track them down.
• And of course, the reason discussed in Mr. Cole's article: You create a precedent of power. Assuming the NSA and Bush get away with the warrant-free wiretapping, they have expanded their sphere of influence considerably, and will be that much more difficult to control.

Focussing solely on the "unbridled power" of the situation is to underestimate the machinations of the people involved in this. This behavior is not just a symptom of sheer desire for power, it has practical implications for consolidating and keeping that power. To fight this behavior effectively, you have to understand it fully. Know your enemy.

Note: I've written about this elsewhere, but it seemed worthwhile to mention here. My apologies if anyone already read some of this in my blog, though I find it unlikely ;-)

The fears I have are more for the exploitation of animals. The mice bred to develop human breast cancer, for example, are probably not having the best lives, and are not expected to do so. A "mousy" mouse can lead a normal life, but a "mouse-human" mouse was not created for any use other than experimentation.

There are the non-genetic blends, too, such as the mice growing human ears on their backs. A biodegradable mold is place on the back, covered with human cartilage, and the mouse's skin and blood takes over supporting the ear. Eventually the biodegradable portion is completely replaced by mouse-grown human cartilage. In most cases the mouse survives the ear removal, but is the process ethically right?

There are cultures who regard other species as "peoples" of their own. If our culture were one such, I would have less concern over our mixing humans and animals. But we tend, in this country, to regard not only other species but our own as commodities. When we ourselves are not treating each other with respect, we should be even more cautious dealing with other species.

First, there is the obvious asked-and-answered question of why this discussion isn't about husband and gigolos as well as wives and whores. I'm sure the researchers themselves are dismayed at a world where this situation exists.

Second, I recently attended the Brown Symposium at Southwestern University ( Gross National Product vs. Gross National Well-being), and Harvard economist Rafael de Tella spoke eloquently about the limitations of traditional economic theory, suggesting useful changes to how economics weights statistics, etc....

I don't recall the exact words, but the best line, which drew an outburst of applause, went something like Economists' level of influence is poorly correlated to their level of knowledge.

Please note, I'm not minimizing the Nazi camps or reducing the prisoners in them to the same level as animals by drawing this comparison - I'm making a moral analogy.

In the concentration camps, prisoners were asked to assist in medical experiments, executions, and so forth, and while some may not have had qualms about this, many did. Picture the medical professional who is asked to assist in experiments which bear no medical benefit (usually quite the opposite) for the "patient." If he or she does, then the patient at least gets some level of care and compassion along the way and may survive, but the professional is aiding and abetting a horrendous thing. If he does not, then some other person with less skill will simply be put in the same situation, and he is forcing another human to carry the burden who may not carry it as well. In that case, you work within a sick system even if it makes you sick and despised by your peers.

Pete is doing the same thing. The mistake in seeing him as evil is to reduce the "sick system" to the kennels. The kennels are part of a larger sick system, this society, which allows such things to operate and profit. Pete sees a need and is inserting himself into the filth to show it to the rest of us in hopes of stopping it. Supporting this is Pete's decision to choose publicity over protection of his identity, which reduces his chances of getting more work in this field.

Our technological influence on this planet makes humans de facto stewards of it, responsible for the species we affect as well as our own. Those who don't acknowledge this and stand by while needless harm goes on are also culpable for that harm. Pete has seen this and taken responsibility for it. His work, while probably taking a terrific toll on his psyche, is valuable. Let's make his work worth the effort and start treating animals with the respect they deserve.