After listening to the usual White House disinformation on the NSA's illegal domestic intelligence operations, I can't resist tossing a couple of thoughts or perhaps insights into the conversation. As none of us have real access to the NSA or to highly classified executive branch communications, much of our citizen's analysis will depend on applying logic, speculation and previous experience in hopes of developing a plausible understanding of what has really happened to our beloved Constitution.

My first thought is that the "wiretapping" was far more wide-spread than has been characterized so far. For those of you contemplating the National Security Agency for the first time, consider the usual mode of operations the agency employs. Generally speaking, the NSA depends upon the application of incredible computer and satellite technology to record a substantial percentage of all the world's telecommunications traffic, to scan such communications for specific points of origin, destinations or key words and phrases to identify interesting, relavent or threatening exchanges. Communications or conversations of interest are recorded for subsequent analysis and follow-up. The term "wiretap" used to characterize such intelligence operations is a convenient and misleading anachronism.

My second thought, not unrelated to the first, is that it seems unlikely that the Bush administration would be so reckless as to embark upon such a course simply because seeking a warrant through the legally permissible route was inconvenient or slow. It is more probable that the legally and constitiutionally safe course was ignored either because it was obvious that the broad application of the NSA's technology to domestic communications would never be approved by the FISA court, or because application for such a warrant was submitted and rejected. In either case, there is no legal defense for these actions, as is made obvious by the absurd justifications that have been offered to this point.

What remains is simply a test of the rule of law as it applies to the executive branch of the federal government. Given the clear trend in recent years, it seems partisan political power is likely to prevail, with no substantial legal action being taken despite the obvious criminality acknowledged by the White House. Despite the administration's rhetoric, the rule of law is of no concern if it threatens their power or political perogative. Our protests and our letters will not bring these people to justice. It will take a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress before any real accountability can be expected.

The discussion regarding the brief political and military analysis that Joe Conason set forth is his article has, by my reading, been conducted with out anyone using the three most important words relating to this entire topic. "Straits of Hormuz" The shallow, 14 mile wide channel at the outlet of the Persian Gulf, leading to the Arabian Sea. The strategic water way that is dominated by a couple hundred miles of Iranian coast line, through which the vast majority of all Persian Gulf oil transits in a perpetual convoy of super tankers. War with Iran means the Iranians do everything in thier power to shut down the oil shipments out of the Gulf. They have the submarines and mine laying capacity to do so. The only question is whether or not the straits could be reopened and secured before our oil dependant economy collapses. The smart money would probably bet on global economic disaster, plain and simple. The ground forces necessary to effectively occupy the Iranian territory over looking the Straits are not available. The rest of the analysis regarding Iranian prompted attacks within Iraqi territory are generally valid. U.S. and British forces do not have the capacity to respond effectively, given the willingness of the various Iraqi militias to take unthinkable casualties.

Even this military analysis doesn't really establish that attacking Iran is unthinkable, given the psycohosis demonstrated over the last three years. After all, George Bush did take the U.S. to war in the most strategically vital location on earth, while simultaneously seeking to demonstrate (for what reason?) that, somehow the bloody lessons learned in the last half century regarding occupations, insurgencies and ethnic warfare, would be negated by some technological advance! What did we have to gain with this demonstration that over shadowed the strategic interests that we put at risk?

It is obvious to me that reason no longer prevails in this administrations approach to our national security. Anything is possible.

Tim

If there is any hope of creating real understanding of the true significance of the Valerie Plame story, progressive journalists at least should break away from the lazy, repetitious use of the word "outing". Valerie Plame was BETRAYED by the Bush administration. The thoughtless use of the term "outing", that has become almost universal from the right and left on this issue, leaves the impression that marginally embarassing information regarding her sexuality has been made public. Historically, when the identity of an secret agent has been revealed, the customary term is betrayal. Please stop with the lazy imitation of the mainstream media on this. The significance and seriousness of this matter are minimized by the failure to use the appropriate word.

Mike from Bedford