You write, as does almost everyone, seemingly, that we are "a nation at war."

But who are we at war with?  We're not at war with Iraq. (And suppose we are; what does this have to do with spying to uncover Al Qaida and other terrorist operatives against us here?)  We are in Iraq protecting and stabilizing the evolving Iraqi government from insurgents. We are at "war" with the terrorists as a term of art, not as likely envisioned under Article II of the Constitution, or as the phrase has, until now, commonly been interpreted in terms of a sovereignty's military engagement with another.

Despite hope otherwise, we may have this terrorism problem for decades. So are we now "perpetually at war,'" just as Orwell suggested, as a reason to expand the powers of the government?

You don't have to agree. But since we are war, what defines it? The broader "war on terrorism"? Or, the security operation in Iraq, that may comprise part of it, and that (because it is so large, costly and controversial), is constantly being referred to as a war? 

Your newspaper (March 22) notes that the President envisions us in Iraq past 2008.  He also reportedly states that "Nobody likes war.  It creates a sense of uncertainty in the country." (Side note; although the President is technically correct, I would submit that uncertainty is not among its worst features.)

[Vandehei], therein, writes "with a series of polls showing Bush and the war  less popular than ever..."

Is the above phrase, "the war," used for simplicity, or, as the President seems to suggest, is this "the war" that we are in? One could cite countless articles that suggest the latter, and countless others that imply that this is somehow, "the war on terror," rather than one very broad based strategic aspect to it [see accompanying  to Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt]. 

If the attacks of 9/11, ushered in said "war time," then the questions I have raised to you regarding the near perpetuity of it, must be answered.

By instead calling Iraq, "the war," that messy little inquiry is deftly sidestepped.  Yet war was the reason given for the administration, clandestinely, without consulting most of Congress, to not only expand the unchecked secretive eyes of government, 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment questions aside, but expressly violate the law [FISA] in so doing.

The reason was a highly questionable and apparent belief that FISA did not allow the necessary spying which battling the terrorists requires, and a [highly erroneous] "belief" that the Executive branch could not only take action as Commander in Chief in the absence of Congressional Statute, but, additionally, could pick and choose (clandestinely, no less) which laws of Congress were valid and invalid during war time.

I suggest that people assume that the war is Iraq, and so accept that we are "at war," when otherwise there would be a more obvious issue with respect to exactly what marks its end, and more public concern over citing "war powers" as an ongoing rationale to expand government powers, with no foreseeable end in sight. This is avoided by the President, and I submit, the media, as well, by labeling Iraq, "a," or, more frequently, "the," war...But even if not the case, the above issues must still be addressed.

You wrote, on Feb. 8, that "[the clandestine NSA wiretap authorization] pits the president's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution against specific legislative rules mandated by Congress in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

I have asked several times, reasonably I believe, who specifically the war is with, and what will mark its end. If it's the war on terror, it potentially has no end, so the gross constitutional distortion of the above statement notwithstanding, the war time powers has to be seen in a new light. If it is just the Iraq war -- as it is continuously being labeled (to either confuse or ignore the question [or just through sloppiness]) -- the argument above would be specious aside from FISA. 

To not address these questions, is irresponsible journalism. I maintain that if you are going to repeatedly refer to the "war" as a rationale in specific instances to expand the scope of executive powers, than the terms of that war be clearly defined so that readers know the potential scope, length, and applicability of what you (and your newspaper) are talking about.

As for your statement cited above, this is even more problematic, and important, as it goes to just what our Constitution means. Please consider this basic analysis.  And here.

As quoted in the piece cited above, former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Burce Fein put it succinctly when he wrote:  "The founding fathers would be alarmed by George W. Bush's trust me' defense for collecting foreign intelligence in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Constitution's separation of powers."

In essence, there are three levels of Executive power. The greatest, as conservative, federalist society member [Robert] Levy points out (and again, we are talking specifically about war powers ) are when the President acts pursuant to an act of Congress. The lowest is, of course, when the President acts in contravention of a direct act of Congers.  The middle ground is when the President acts in the absence of any act of Congress. (It is here that items become "nebulous," and reasonable interpretations differ.)

For the Executive branch to act in direct contravention of Congress in the third category, it needs to have a compelling reason. The reason offered, that, in essence, the Constitution states that the President is Commander in Chief, and well, "the President thought that it was a good idea" (when we are talking about operational detail over United States citizens, that raises additional constitutional issues to boot, no less) makes a bit of a mockery of that document. 

To quote from Levy's Judiciary Subcommittee testimony; "The executive branch cannot, in the face of an express prohibition by Congress, unilaterally set the rules, execute the rules, and eliminate oversight by the other branches."

Under our Constitution, Congress has the duty and power to legislate, and the executive branch, the duty and power to execute and administer the law. Thus, for a reason to be sufficiently compelling, the law itself would have to be unconstitutional, or otherwise directly conflict with the President's capacity to operate as "Commander in Chief."

To argue, implicitly, that deciding to violate a law requiring a warrant to spy on American citizens somehow infringes upon that capacity, is equivalent to arguing that anything the President were to decide is somehow relevant to "fighting a war," would likewise infringe upon that capacity. If not, we'd be reduced to squabbling over what is and is not a good idea. And this is precisely what Congress is for. If the President could nevertheless override Congress on matters of Legislation, then the President by definition would have the power to determine "what is, and isn't," a good idea, bringing us back to the conclusion that, under this bizarre argument, the President would have absolute legislative authority with respect to anything that he deemed relevant. (This does not even consider the separate issue of acting clandestinely.)

Thus, in essence, not only would the President have executive authority (the authority and duty to "see that the laws be faithfully administered, under Article II, Section 3) but both legislative authority and the ability to ignore both existing and subsequent legislation. This would, as noted elsewhere, render the most fundamental purpose of the Constitution -- the separation of powers clause -- essentially null and void.

.....Yet it is not only the reason offered, it is the reason that you and many other media sources have presented as merely one of two implicitly equal "points of view."  This is irresponsible.  It is particularly irresponsible in light of the fact that you won't answer the question as to "who we are at war with," apparently assuming it is obvious, when in fact the Iraq "war," is constantly being confused with, or substituted for, the broader war on terror. This manages to leave the larger questions as to just what is appropriate, and for what purpose, and for what period of time, and, most importantly, with what ramifications, unasked, let alone answered.