The issue we were talking about is not why Bush didn't use FISA. The issue was
"2. The lack of an explanation as to why easily obtainable FISA warrants and/or a change in FISA itself weren't pursued."
Message 22740443
Obviously a public explanation, or a change in the law would be public, not secret.
As for the reason why Bush didn't just use FISA - Well I can only guess. One guess is that the data mining for people contacting suspects would require far too many warrants. I'd like to hear an explanation from the administration rather than just have to guess, OTOH any explanation gives away the techniques that are being used.
You might not understand this distinction, but I'm not actually supporting Bush's surveillance program, I am rather going after inaccurate attacks against the program. If you wanted to talk about "constitutionally dubious secret programs", and say something like "it seems fishy to me", or "I don't trust the administration and I don't think they have any effective check here", than I probably wouldn't respond. But instead you and/or others have claimed that the program is clearly unconstitutional or illegal (either against the constitution, or an area where congress has the power to decide and where congress has said no), and grounds for impeachment, and possible criminal prosecution. I think that attack is seriously inaccurate.
As for Bush's comments downplaying the importance of catching bin Laden, I think the words he chose where poor, but it is true that catching or killing bin Laden, while it would be a success for the operations against terrorism, would be a limited success. Capturing him would not end terrorism from Al Qaeda and those who are inspired by Al Qaeda or who share its aims and targets. |
