Big Brother throws a tantrum

Former head of the National Security Agency during the time President Bush first authorized domestic surveillance, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden staunchly defended the program.

"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States and we would have identified them as such."

Oh, if only we had known...yeah, right.  Sorry, Gen. Hayden, but we did have knowledge of al Qaeda on our soil and no such surveillance was necessary to gain that knowledge.  Instead it was good old-fashioned police work by the FBI who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker" of 9/11, on an immigration violation after a flight school instructor became suspicious of him.  Then the FBI lawyers got cold feet and he slipped through their fingers.  Right-wing spinners may try and use this as justification for Bush's warrantless panty-raids but the fibbie lawyers stopped themselves; they never went before a FISA court which would have almost certainly have granted a warrant.  Then we have Able Danger which was tracking Mohamed Atta and his terrorist cell prior to 9/11 and once again the lawyers (military this time) prevented the sharing of vital information.
It would appear that even when we have the information, lawyers and bureaucracy gum up the works.  And what is the Bush Administration’s solution to this problem?  Creating an even larger bureaucracy and trampling over the civil rights of all within our borders.  The lawyers cited above did not seek out court approval because they inexplicably and incorrectly thought their cases were too weak.  So rather than clear up the guidelines and encourage more judicial review, the Administration’s solution is to simply circumvent that whole judicial oversight folderol.  Never mind that the FISA court has not refused a single surveillance application in its 23 year history.
So, we’ve got to ask ourselves: just why would the Administration be reticent to seek permission from a court that can’t seem to say “no” anyway?  Could it be because the extra surveillance powers have been shown to be unnecessary?  Or could it be that the object(s) of their desire is not as advertised and not even justifiable to the warrant whores of FISA?