A Stitch in Haste

Sorry for the review of elementary logic, but the folks over at the Wall Street Journal (cross-posted at OpinionJournal) seem to need it:

British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."

Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs.
...
In short, Democrats who claim to want "focus" on the war on terror have wanted it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win it. [Emphasis in original.]

To which I must let out a Rumsfeldian "Oh my goodness..."

First off, let me pat myself on the back for having seen this coming:

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program did not in any way contribute to the thwarting of this apparent plot. But I'll also bet dollars to donuts that the apologists for the program will hold up this incident as somehow demonstrating the need for the program.

Acta est fabula, plaudite!(*)

It's quite simple really: Just because you're opposed to warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on American soil does not mean you are opposed to wiretapping of terrorists overseas. Or, to make it even more remedial: Just because you're opposed to warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on American soil does not mean you are opposed to wiretapping.

You can also be opposed to warrantless wiretapping because it's warrantless. In violation of clear statutory proscription and, possibly, the Fourth Amendment.

It's not really necessary to autopsy in any great detail the particulars of the U.K. plot and its irrelevancy to the warrantless wiretapping scandal: these men were known to have a terrorist agenda and had been monitored for months. They were drenched in probable cause, certainly enough for a wiretap warrant, and certainly enough to abide by FISA (which, recall, even allows a generous window for retroactive warrants.) I certainly hope they were wiretapped, and to the extent they called Americans in America, I hope those calls were wiretapped too.

It's not the wiretapping — it's the warrantless, (stupid).

Any attempt to obfuscate that is highly illogical.