NYT Deserves "Rapid Un-Election"

My last post yesterday had to do with terrorism without borders, and the lesson from the London blast: that we must consider our domestic Muslim populations as threats. I concluded that any member of Congress standing in the way of the Patriot Act is ignoring this reality and deserves "rapid un-election."

As I wrote, the NYTimes was on the press, complete with an editorial criticizing the proposed new administrative subpoena provisions of the Act as too repressive. The editorial doesn't even mention the London bombings, or the strong possibility that the perpetrators either didn't have to travel at all, or traveled with valid European passports.

Instead, it frets about rights being stepped on in cases involving suspected terrorists. Sorry, but if there's any reason to investigation a person about terrorism, they've strayed into places where forfeiture of certain rights to further quick and thorough investigation is a reasonable consequence.

In an example of sheer idiocy, the NYT says:

The bill's defenders note that administrative subpoenas are already allowed in other kinds of investigations. But these are generally in highly regulated areas, like Medicaid billing. The administrative subpoena power in the new bill would apply to anything the F.B.I. deemed related to alleged foreign intelligence or terrorism, and could, in practice, give the F.B.I. access to almost any private records it wanted.

How can the NYT think administrative subpoenas are OK for Medicaid investigations but not terror investigations? Will they change their view when some Brooklyn or Bronx jihadist blows up a NY subway?