As news reports, bloggers and other media from both political sides roll out the story on the National Security Administration's (NSA) domestic spying program, a very common theme with such political rhetoric starts to unfold: spin. In fact, this story is so dizzy with spin, it has lost its roots of why it was important in the first place.

Both President Bush and Vice-president Cheney have staunchly defended the program, deeming it important to national security. The administration claims that if the United States had these provisions before 9/11, the attacks on the nation could have been thwarted. Wiretapping has been around for decades, and is indeed an important tool in the fight against terrorism.

In remarks by Bush in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html), the president said: [There] are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

The tragedy for Bush is that he had already started the program to go around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court and eavesdrop on Americans without a court order, over two years before his statement. Despite the rational for eavesdropping on American citizens or those in this country, President Bush made false statements (lied) about obtaining court orders for those wiretaps.

While many might try to defend these actions, President Bush swore an oath entering the office of President that he would uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Usurping power to supersede the powers the executive branch has been granted in the constitution is not an example of upholding the law or the constitution. It is, in fact, a violation of law and an impeachable offense.

With a provision to allow 72 hours of warrantless surveillance, there are no reasons that the Bush administration could not have gone through the proper channels of the law and obtained the warrants needed to keep the surveillance legal.

Unfortunately those who feel that the ends justify the means truly do not understand what the United States of America is all about.