I'm currently reading a fabulous book, "What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty". Inside, editor John Brockman assembles the world's foremost scientists and experts and asks them to take logical leaps, leaps that, when made in the past, have led to today's conventional wisdom.

The brilliant Big Thinking in the book got me to thinking about the wonderfully devious question posed in the title: What do I believe but cannot prove? Searching my thoughts, I decided to take a look at recent headlines and take a leap that, while something I cannot now prove, I'm confident will soon be seen as fact.

I believe, but cannot prove, that the Bush administration is not only tracking international calls and mining phone records, but is also actively listening to purely domestic calls. What's more, that, at the behest of the highest authorities, the administration is actively spying on its political opponents, from massive, nationwide groups to everyday individuals.

When defending himself amidst the latest news, Bush has repeatedly stated that his administration is not "trolling" or "mining" "through the personal lives of millions of Americans". Further, an unnamed source told the New York Times that the call records were only being used to trace the contacts of "known bad guys". To me, neither claims are very reassuring. And they shouldn't be to you, either.

I'm curious: Who does the president consider "innocent"? Also: Who does the administration consider "bad guys"? I think the answer to those questions, given what we've already learned about this president, isn't so simple as "those tied directly to terrorists". It's already been shown that the administration has spied upon peace groups, gay rights advocates and environmental activists. Muslims, too, and possibly journalists.

But beyond that, think about the lengths those in the White House are willing to go for partisan reasons. This rabid political underhandedness can be summed up in two words: Valerie Plame. The president and vice president were willing to threaten national security by outing an undercover CIA operative, one working on tracking weapons of mass destruction to and from Iran. Ask yourself: Is it that odd to think that they wouldn't spy on everyday Americans for political gain?

Sure, such a policy would be illegal. But, then again, so is ignoring FISA to wiretap without a warrant. And what of the more than 750 laws the president is openly disobeying thanks to signing statements he attaches to legislation? Besides, is upholding the law a priority to an administration that operates secret prisons, abuses detainees, holds them without charge and uses chemical weapons on civilians? Would a White House so panicked about plummeting support be worried about the law when everything we know suggests otherwise?

While my unproven beliefs may seem, to some, like the paranoid theorizing of a progressive under a leadership of a regressive administration, look at the recent patten of White House scandals. What was first revealed as the warrantless wiretapping of international calls was explained away by the West Wing as isolated incidents that didn't mean the government was spying on your calls. Only months later it was revealed that, contrary to what was first said, the government was tracking domestic calls, going back a long, long time.

With this in mind, the administration and its apologists are decrying the politicization of the NSA's surveillance efforts. Those criticizing the practice, they say, are only doing so for partisan political reasons. Could it be, however, that the same people looking for another reason to criticize progressives are, in fact, the same people using a massive intelligence apparatus to track the every move of their political opponents? Knowing what we know, is that really so great a logical leap to make?

If history has proven anything, it's that there's no self-imposed "off" switch on a power grab. Without proper oversight, the pursuit of unchecked presidential power proceeds, well, unchecked. As William Bogan said so well last week, "Governments don't willingly give up power." He's right. And, faced with a Republican Congress that has abdicated its responsibility for oversight, the prospect of a vast, illegal spying program armed with a partisan agenda is a grim one, indeed. One that may, sooner rather than later, be proven true.

Until then, I believe, but cannot prove, that that's the case.