Thursday, 19 January 2006 - 6:32 AM CST

I don't know why it's 72 hours, but your point is moot. That's the law. No law, regardless if it is the most just and perfectly written by human hands, can confer legality upon lawlessness.

Bush was making no attempt to comply with the FISA-Patriot Act. In order to use the emergency retroactive warrant, the AG first has to go to a FISA-Patriot Act judge and certify under oath that a surveillance operation has begun against a USPERS who is "an agent of a foreign power," i.e., has links to an international terrorist organization, and that the paperwork will soon follow in not less than 72 hours. Bush's program was not an emergency surveillance proceding temporarily without warrant. His program was a complete and total avoidance of the law, the court, the warrants, the procedures, etc. It's not presumed legal unless the AG has certified under oath to the judge that it is.

You are arguing that it's wrong to require drivers to come to a full and complete stop in the case of a driver who routinely runs stop signs and says he has every intention of contining to do so.

Clinton used Echelon data mining with FISA warrants and was able to get convictions in court. Bush was using without warrants before 9/11, still failed to stop 9/11, and can't get convictions because the evidence is contaminated. Government secrecy, authoritarianism, and incompetence feed off each other. Such a government will always demand more power to cover up its past incompetence.