I wish Ann or some other high profile conservative writer would do a detailed story about what it really takes to get a FISA warrant. A guy who is now retired, used to do it and was on Rush's show last week and it blew my mind when he explained how difficult and time consuming the entire process is. Seventy-two hours, my @ss! That's just more false democrat talking points when it comes to the reality.
The statutory language gives a pretty good clue. I heard the piece that the caller to Limbaugh gave, and took with a bit of a jaundiced eye. First, times and perspectives change - while the wheels of justice tend to turn slow and fine, they may have become more relaxed and swift in light of the stakes of terrorism. Second, the interpretation of the law was changed radically by the FISA review Court in 2002. Third, investigators tend to perceive any type of requirement for justification to be an unnecessary burden - it's perfectly natural for them to have that point of view.
But, at the same time, we just don't know if the 72 hour "get a warrant" requirement fits the kind of surveillance that is being undertaken. I do agree in principle, the more onerous the paperwork, the less of the activity.
And, since we don't know, the DEM talking point is, as you point out, false. President Bush has noted that the FISA structure is fine for longer term surveillance. That tidbit gives a little insight into a possible "short duration" element of some of the surveillance. That is, some surveillance may not even last as long as 72 hours.
bttt