I agree with almost everything you said. The only thing I was really trying to say in the article was that we don’t know enough about the program to condemn it or support it. The more I read about it the more benign it seems to me as far as civil liberties are concerned. But there may be aspects of the program - stuff we’ll probably never know due to its sensitive nature - that stepped way over the line and entered the realm of unnecessary violations of the Constitution.

The fact that no one knows this makes lefties look like idiots. But it also makes some conservatives look like Administration shills. I prefer to wait a while before making a value judgment on this very important program.

The United States is at war with a ruthless enemy who will, given the chance, attack us here at home. Imagine the effects–economic, political, social–of a second, perhaps worse, September 11. In that event, what would the American people have to say about measures necessary to secure the homeland? Does anyone imagine that they’d object to measures involving to a serious diminution of civil liberties?

In wartime, you don’t make a free gift of sensitive information to your enemy. That is elementary common sense–a commodity in short supply among liberals, progressives and leftists, apparently. They take neither the war nor the security of this country seriously. When the next terrorist attack comes, as surely it will, these people will have a lot to answer for.

Possible - but doubtful.

1. It seems that we agree that revelation of eavesdropping without a warrant was not in itself damaging.

2. We agree that where information regarding methods and practices of eavesdropping is revealed, then that is harmful.

Which brings me to what I think is my new position:

I continue to believe that the Bush Administration’s reaction to the original NYT article was overblown and perhaps even cynically manipulative, given that the article did not delve into eavesdropping methods, but rather focused on the legal aspects of the program. However, I also believe that subsequent speculation about eavesdropping programs in various media outlets (connected or not to the recently revealed NSA program) is in most cases not a responsible topic for journalists to broach.

Which brings me to a new question:
Do bloggers get an exemption to my new position, or should they also be condemned for speculating as to methods of eavesdropping?

In fact, there have been hints that the program has the cooperation of Telecom companies with regards to the switches where calls are routed as well as many, many other tidbits of info that knowledgable intelligence professionals would be able to construct an outline of HOW the surveillance is carried out. Do you think it would be helpful to our enemies to know that not only are their calls from overseas being monitored but that ANY electronic communications are also intercepted?

Again, in this case, both NSA professionals AND the White House are extremely concerned. Can you see by revealing details to satisfy YOUR curiosity that the program would be compromised further?

The fact is that we do know precisely what was in the NYT article. Therefore, we know exactly what new information that article provided to Al Queda. The new information in a nutshell was this: Eavesdropping is being done without a warrant. And so the question becomes: How could the knowledge of warrantless bugging (as opposed to warranted bugging) conceivably be used by Al Queda to their advantage? I just don’t see how it could.

The effect is cumulative as well as specific. We don’t know EXACTLY what harm was done because we don’t know EXACTLY what info the terrorists have in their possession prior to outing the program.

But you must assume the worst and believe that ANY info helps them. I’m sure al Qaeda’s heirarchy has a helluva lot better idea of how the NSA program actually works than the NY Times or any of us.

I really do have an open mind on this.

If anyone can explain why the terrorists have gained an upperhand as a result of this leak - as asserted repeatedly by the Bush Administration - please feel free to do so. If your explanation is feasible, I am perfectly willing to recant, reconsider, repent, and reform.

Thanks.

After 9/11 all we heard from the press were things like “why didn’t we connect the dots?…..if we had connected the dots maybe we could have prevented this…international and domestic intelligence agencies aren’t working together to connect the dots…yada yada”. Well, one needs dots in the first place if you’re planning to connect them later. Where do they come from? No one seemed to be asking that question in the months after 9/11. And the “we” the press referred to was definitely not you and me, it was the government they were chastising.

DocMartyn makes excellent points with respect to technology. Our buying and financial habits and patterns are tracked through our credit cards, while private spyware can and does track our internet use. We, as citizens, are captured on survelience cameras thousands of times a day. All of this without our permission or court orders. We are “patted down” at sports stadiums and airports. I don’t like any of the new invasiveness, in fact, I hate it, but I deal with it because it’s how life is in the 21st century. I guess I view the NSA intercept program for potential terrorists as part of that continuum.