All the news this weekend has been about the admission by Bush that he authorized warrantless wiretaps by the NSA. This has created a fire storm of protest even extending as far as some prominent Republican senators who have promised hearings after the new year.

There have been a variety of reasons given for the action. The ones I've seen the most often (The * are mostly from the conservatives):

Simple arrogance or lust for power
* Need for immediate response
* Need for heightened observation to fight the terrorists.

The rebuttals to the admin points:
The existing law allows for a warrant application upto 72 hours after the wiretap is started. The heightened need seems to be covered by the existing legislation which is pretty broad already.

My take is that there was an operation planned (or underway) that was so remote from monitoring "terrorists" that even the rubber stamp court that issues warrants would balk. This operation had to come from some area of the government that directs the NSA. Bush was basically instructed to sign a blank check. There is no reason why he would have operational knowledge of individual actions.

The most likely targets from this point of view would be politicians in opposition to the present admin and/or foreign allies. Imagine asking a judge for a warrant to wiretap John Kerry or Tony Blair as "terrorists". This has happened before, most recently with the Nixon "plumbers" who were spying on the Democratic party headquarters.

I'd be interested in hearing the take from Europe on the whole affair. There seems to be something similar brewing in Northern Ireland with a British spy. Or, perhaps, since Bismarck this type of thing is expected.

Any thoughts?