I've included one of their posts and my comments below b/c I think it's a very telling example of news today.
Every story has it's counterexample. For every document dismissing any Iraq/Al-Qaeda link there's one that puts them together. For every judge that thinks the wiretap program oversteps the law, there's a counter example that shows they did not. Our own selective filters take in articles that reinforce that which we believe (or want to believe) is true. It's something I know I do and actively try to avoid. It's not always that easy.
De la Where: Those damn judges will pay for this!
I commented thusly:
Well, then there's this:
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida [b]and an author of the 1978 FISA Act[/b]. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
As one of the authors, it seems to me the guy has a pretty good grasp on the limits of the law and the intended scope.