what this shows is that the courts cannot be trusted to conduct a domestic war on terror involving agents of foreign powers on US soil. there are simply too many protections offered by our judicial system, its a system that is primarily designed to deal with crime AFTER it has occurred - which is of no use when trying to stop domestic terrorism.
" there are simply too many protections offered by our judicial system, its a system that is primarily designed to deal with crime AFTER it has occurred - which is of no use when trying to stop domestic terrorism."
====
Exactly.
Another good editorial discussing the facts:
Wiretaps for me, not thee?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1546024/posts
Can Democratic presidents order wiretaps on U.S. soil without a court order, but not Republicans? We ask because that's the standard critics appear to be using against President Bush over National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda operatives. Every president, Democrat or Republican, has exercised this authority since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act became law in October 1978. But it appears to be deemed problematical only for President Bush, whose wiretaps are said to have caught Iyman Faris, a naturalized U.S. citizen who wanted to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge.
===
I guess President Bush should have just let the terrorists blow up the Brooklyn Bridge... (/sarcasm)