Thursday, January 26, 2006

The Continuing Wiretapdance.

Now, as documented here and elsewhere, the FISA laws are incredibly sufficient. The wiretap can be insituted 72 hours in advance of applying for a warrant. Those judges are on hand to authorize warrants at a moment's notice. Moreover, the law allows up to fifteen days of time to elapse between the initiation of a wiretap and the needed approval from FISA in the case of an emergency. Fifteen days. So, we can toss the ticking timebomb reasoning right out. So the FISA courts are way agile. No need to improve their agility at all. And there's no worry about judges being so exactingly circumspect that a terrorist falls through the cracks. The FISA judges have a lifetime record of turning down five applications. And even if your application gets turned down, there's a special court of appeals set up to hear your case that's been used exactly ONE time. And if two bites of the apple aren't enough, the FISA statutes give you a third: an immediate ex parte in camera (which is a lot of Latin, I know) session with the Supreme Court--and since the SCOTUS' main concern is with their judicial legacy, the chance that body is going to turn down a warrant application with even the barest, faded vestige of a whiff of propriety is absolutely nil.

--The DCeiver, "A Birthday Message", 16 January 2006


Look, I've already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the absurd contention that the legal avenues currently available under the FISA laws are insufficiently agile in combating terrorism (i.e. placing effective, comprehensive wiretaps on suspects foreign and domestic) is wrong on its face. It's wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and the continued insistence of any party that the facts or the law do not line up with my assessment, chapter and verse, is only proof that said party is an intractable moron worthy of being tilled into compost.

But if you don't want to take my word for it, it's okay, because I found out today that my assessment has the support of a party that should serve to assuage you that what I'm saying is true:

The Bush Administration.

Go ahead and read another one of Glenn Greenwald's expert assessments.

Check and mate, my friends. Check and mate.

PS: Commander Cuckoo Bananas was at it again today, saying loony crap like, "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" AGAIN: An illegal act cannot be transformed, as if by magic, into a legal act just because you TELL somebody. Show me in the relevant statutes where it says that the Constitution can be abridged and laws set aside just because a criminal act is pre-announced!

4 comments:

A. L. Deviant said...

I think you are forgetting that "Jesus" or, rather, "The Lord" has spoken to CCB (i.e. GWB) to protect us from the evil doers. The last I had heard, the J.C. doesn't need no stinking laws to do his work, which is fueling CCB's messianic dellusions.

This house of cards has to collapse sometime. It just won't be soon enough for me.

Le Porq said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Le Porq said...

Lark! There be a dad tootin smokin' gun in our'n midstses! Is there a blog-to-NYT babelfish translator type thing that can clue in the SCLM to this loverly bit of scooptastic journo-houndiness that G.G. hath uncovered? Let us pray...

Or prey?

- porq out

PK said...

Uh, yeah. FINALLY, hard evidence that the Bush administration is lying about something. Now they're totally screwed.

Oh, wait, what's that? They been getting away with roughly a lie a day for the last five years? And have seemingly avoided all consequences? Hmm. Bummer.

The most frustrating dance in the world is the "get excited about Bush getting busted in a lie" shuffle that we liberals groove to. There will be no consequences. We are going to have to keep on keepin' on until 2008, I'm afraid. As it stands, there are already so many smoking guns lying around in plain view on the White House lawn that you can probably see them from space.