Emailed Russ yesterday to thank him for slapping Spectre down again. Does my heart good.

Thank you, Senator. I’m depressed now. I’ve been hearing enough right-wing gloating about this, already. I can’t for the life of me understand how this motion failed 96-3. It seems like there’s got to be an explanation for so much Democratic inaction on this.
Feingold fought but Feingold lost,
But ‘least he kept his sacred pact.
Ninety-six ignored the cost
Of keeping on the Patriot Act.

Of course Oceania has WMDs. It’s always had them. That’s why we’re at war.

===”Hello, and welcome to Missouri for Feingold!

My name is Dan, and you may remember me from such blogs as http://russfeingold.blogspot.com “

“That’s the separation of powers, General, and the same principle is enshrined in the Constitution.

“It’s all well and good for you to say we should trust you not to abuse your power.

“But before the NSA or the CIA fires a nuclear weapon into the private life of an American citizen, it has to get a court to issue a warrant — to turn that other key.”

The purpose of this ‘intelligence’ on 200m Americans that the NSA dare not use in any court of law because of its questionable constitutional validity relating to its method of procurement is not difficult to surmise regardless of what Rivkin says.

Hayden is unlikely to provide categorical answers to any question on this issue even in closed session because he confuses the interests of the Presidential office with that of the country.

Meanwhile, these Keystone cops have not a clue re the whereabouts of a well known face sitting atop a 6′5 frame, possibly carrying a dialysis machine, wanted dead or alive beyond the fact that he is not hiding under the Oval office desk.

After listening to highlights of today’s testimony by General Hayden, I have to say I’m not all that assured that the laws of the land are not being violated by the NSA. He may have said that “not one additional photon or pixel” would be collected than what was needed to monitor potential terroroists but…

He has no way of knowing his is successor at NSA subscribes to that principle.

I would read aloud his statement and ask: “Do you have any knowledge to support or refute the contention that your successor at NSA has been abiding by this principle?”

I would also ask General Hayden: Would you consider it appropriate to use the wiretapping capabilities of the “Terrorist Surveillance Network” to gather data on domestic traitors?

(If No) – So if the president says “Mr. XYZ in Baltimore has comitted treason and we need to find out who he is talking too” you would tell him what?

(If Yes) – So domesting traitors are equivalent to terrorists as far as your are concerned. So who decides if a person is a traitor? Do you consider Jack Murtha to be a traitor? How about reporters who reveal information that makes this administration look bad?

That’s the question I’d like to see.

Therefore stipulating that Al Quaeda (and any other terrorist groups) are also aware of this already;

Why does the administration persist in declaring this (already universally known) knowledge to be dangerous to the security of the nation, and so covered by offical secrets and not to be disclosed, discussed, or reported on? (Note: I fully acknowledge it would be not in the nations’ interests to disclose the details of the hardware design and software algorithms used, since by Godels’ Theoremn we know that given any known algorithm it is possible to devise inputs which will break it, i.e. the terrorists will with that level of detail know exactly how to avoid observation)

Why does the administration persist also in declaring it to be illegal to leak or report on the various warrantless NSA tapping schemes when it is already a matter of law that it is not illegal to reveal (possibly) illegal activity, and further it is also already illegal to use offical secrets to cover up such illegal activity?

I wish someone would hand him a copy of the 4th Amendment and make him read it OUT LOUD, followed up by asking about probable cause.