2+2=5

In the last entry, I was railing against the inherently contradictory doublespeak in Shrub's justification, which boiled down amounts to "To protect everyone's civil rights, I need to curtail certain people's civil rights." Obviously, you haven't protected everyone's civil rights if you curtail certain people's civil rights. (And for those who say, "Well, these guys were terrorists," the presumption of innocence applies to every American citizen last time I checked. Furthermore, how do you know these guys were terrorists? Remember, this administration listed anti-war Quakers as a threat to national security, so I call bullshit on the "why are you protecting terrorists" pablum.)

The more and more I read and think about this warantless wiretapping program, the more incensed I get, and the more I want to tell people to start critically thinking.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the NSA already had the authority to conduct wiretaps on American citizens so long as it obtained a warrant from a special court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or FISC) created for this purpose. As stated in the link, over 15,000 such warrants were requested, and not a single one denied. Furthermore, FISA authorizes a FISC judge to allow a wiretap of U.S. persons under one of these four conditions: (1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which "may involve" a criminal law violation; (2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power pursuant to the direction of an intelligence network and his activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations; (3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or (4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in one of the above ways.

FISA also allows for immediate, 72-hour emergency wiretapping without court approval. Should an emergency come up immediately, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on any person for three days, so long as they receive the warrant after the three days. The only time FISA authorizes a warantless search is if there is no "substantial likelihood" that the intercepted communications include those to which a U.S. person is a party.

FISA gives me the heebie jeebies, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that FISA is the bee's knees.

Now, given that the NSA could already wiretap United States citizens they suspect of planning on blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge for three days before going to the FISC, why would the Administration circumvent the FISC all together? You can't say that the FISC will slow down any emergency wiretapping with paperwork, given that the NSA has three days after it starts wiretapping to seek a warrant from the FISC. And it's not like the FISC was picky in authorizing warrants given that they never rejected a warrant.

Or another way to frame this argument is "Against which targets would the FISC deny a warrant for a wiretap?" The only reason for the Administration to circumvent FISA is if the administration were afraid that FISC would deny a warrant. Given that FISA as well as the past history of FISC gives broad latitude to the NSA to wiretap those supposed Brooklyn Al Queda sympathizers, in which possible scenario would FISC deny a warrant? The answer to these questions should give you a chill.