Illegal wiretapping questions - groups of warrants?

[NewJeffCT]

Another thing we've heard is that it's "inconvenient" to have to get so many warrants. (another winner from Kathleen Parker - >>But in practice, the task of getting scores or hundreds of warrants to wiretap terrorism suspects mid-conversation seems impossible and imprudent.<<< http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-parker0102.artjan02,0,6699880.story

But, my question is this. If Bush had gone to the FISA court and said, "hey, we think these 100 people may have ties to Al Qaeda through the XYZ charity, can we get 1 warrant for all of them?" Would that have been ok? Could he have said, "we have Operation Blowjob that is tracking Al Qaeda in America. We need to Wiretap these 200..." would that have been ok?

I just want to debunk the argument that so many warrants was somehow imprudent. (I keep picturing Dana Carvey as George HW Bush saying, "wouldn't be prudent)

[Blutodog]

1. Parker is a Bu$h ass kisser

Cathy Parker is always ready and willing to give Bu$h a heady. She's a 2 bit Bu$h whore from way back. They drag her sorry ass out to make the rethug soccer MOM crowd happy. Her whole modus operandi is to sound reasonable while still being a wingnut. It doesn't work for me. She just sounds like she's full of shit.

[unblock]

2. since the fisa court is secret, we actually can't know the answer

but i would think if they had specific information for a small group, that's ok; but if the group is overly broad, then no.

i.e., if it's a group of 25 fanatics of some sort, many with criminal histories, and some group events have led to arrests, then warrant the whole lot.

otoh, if it's a huge group, say, the aclu, then forget it, even if a small handful of aclu members have something 'suspicious' about them.

imho.

[lala_rawraw]

3. This makes no sense any way

No matter how they put this, the fact is, using broadband for example and encryption like PGP ... you would not know what to spy on unless you decrypted everything, then you could narrow your scope to suspects. OR you would have to have prior knowledge of suspects as suspects and 500 people a day for many years is hardly something coming out of phone books of terrorists. Plus, let us assume that the figure is accurate, not more than, just 500... are these the same 500 people and if so, why the hell are 500 people a day talking to terrorists and doing it for years without ever having been arrested???? That many people talking to terrorists a day is a veritable army, hardly a few bad apples or a few bad people.

[pinkpops]

4. Since they are claiming it is very limited in scope I dont see

how they could also claim it is inconvenient to get so many warrants.

[NewJeffCT]

5. good point!

nice ammo for a LTTE