First I read this letter:
How predictable: Those who believe the executive branch can declare itself free of the oversight that the Constitution calls for now use the plot to bomb planes, foiled by Britain, to justify ignoring the FISA court's authority.
Just as predictably -- the argument holds no water. That plot came to light through an informant's tip and competent investigation, not wiretaps. With such evidence, a law-abiding Bush administration could easily have obtained any warrant it needed.
PAUL DAVESON, EAGAN
And then a little later, predictably, I come across this, which shows that this argument, er, holds no water:
Officials said U.S. law would not have allowed the FBI to conduct the type of surveillance that led Britain to uncover the al Qaeda cell and capture what could be the network’s chief. They said the department also does not have the funding to detect new types of bombs used by al Qaeda.
''What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information,'' Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.
Officials said British authorities have greater powers of surveillance and investigation, which facilitated the capture of more than 20 suspected al Qaeda plotters. In contrast, they said, Congress has been reviewing the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program and military tribunals.
On Aug. 17, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in Detroit that the National Security Agency's wiretap program was unconstitutional and ordered that it be halted. The administration plans to appeal the decision.
So a left-wing douchebag letter writer (is there any other kind?) goes off half cocked, bloviating about things he knows nothing about, uncritically regurgitating the same tripe he's been fed.