The statutory language gives a pretty good clue. I heard the piece that the caller to Limbaugh gave, and took with a bit of a jaundiced eye. First, times and perspectives change - while the wheels of justice tend to turn slow and fine, they may have become more relaxed and swift in light of the stakes of terrorism. Second, the interpretation of the law was changed radically by the FISA review Court in 2002. Third, investigators tend to perceive any type of requirement for justification to be an unnecessary burden - it's perfectly natural for them to have that point of view.
But, at the same time, we just don't know if the 72 hour "get a warrant" requirement fits the kind of surveillance that is being undertaken. I do agree in principle, the more onerous the paperwork, the less of the activity.
And, since we don't know, the DEM talking point is, as you point out, false. President Bush has noted that the FISA structure is fine for longer term surveillance. That tidbit gives a little insight into a possible "short duration" element of some of the surveillance. That is, some surveillance may not even last as long as 72 hours.
From listening to the caller, it was my impression that he knew that the "process" for getting a warrant is still riddled with red tape. I'd like to know how much of that red tape has been removed in order to get the actual request moved through the bureaucracy. The guy's main complaint was that he was expected to "make the entire case" BEFORE a request could be moved through the process. He was frustrated that linking suspicions based on intelligence wasn't good enough.
From the article: After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before.
This is what bothers me and perfectly explains why Bush decided to sidestep a process that has obviously become politicized by a secret court.