jonerik @ 116

I’m as disappointed and unhappy as anyone with this sellout by the Democrats, especially my own Senator, Amy Klobuchar. …

I wonder if she was blackmailed into it to get funds for bridge rebuilding.

I think there was a lot of blackmailing going on.

Anyone suppose they needed that NSA wiretapping legalized in a hurry in order to nail the NSA leaker? Was just noticing the language in comment #35.

Interesting point…they DID get his laptops and computers. So if the FISA Court had determined such intercepts were illegal, they would have needed Congress to religitimize the very computer surveillance that allowed Congress to know about the illegal “black program”.

It also means that all “sources” for the Mainstream Media have ZERO, Zilch, Nada…
Confidentiality!

To the WashPo. and NYTimes- All your squealing about a “Journalist-Source” Privilege means shite because of this President. You can’t even keep your own email out of the Feds hands anymore!

Blub @ 103

Anybody know why Boxer didn’t vote on FISA? Was she defering to DiFi/saving face or did she have a legitimate reason for missing the vote Friday.

She and Kerry were out windsurfing. All they needed was one more vote. (They together made sure it wouldn’t come from them). Fix was on.

This isn’t true. The Bush needed 60 votes in the Senate. He got them.

If 41 Democrats had not even shown up the vote would have lost.

So the absences were essentially “No” votes. It would have been “nice” to have these Senators up there in debate…and pewrhaps they could have been useful in bringing back one Senator to either vote “No” or not vote.

If one of the ten “Traitors to our Constitution” had abstained, not shown up, or had a seizure…the bill would have gone down to defeat.

Boxer or Kerry or Delahunt not showing up were equivalent to “NO” votes, people!

I’m as disappointed and unhappy as anyone with this sellout by the Democrats, especially my own Senator, Amy Klobuchar. …

I wonder if she was blackmailed into it to get funds for bridge rebuilding.

dead last @ 10

This reminds me of a friend who recently signed blank mortgage documents because the broker told her it was necessary. She had not yet been told the interest rate and the takeout had been increased by $20,000 to cover the interest rate buydown that the $8000 loan fee wasn’t going to cover.

She felt studpid and trapped and helpless.
…

That should be illegal

…

Do we know of anybody in Congress who would put forward some legislation to make it illegal?

jonerik @ 116

I’m as disappointed and unhappy as anyone with this sellout by the Democrats, especially my own Senator, Amy Klobuchar. But there are two good reasons not to give in to total despair. First, Bush may veto this legislation. And it is only good for six months in any event. Either way, there will be another chance to hammer the jellyfish with some information about what they gave away here.

Second, the fact Bush is trying to get this passed at all means he has capitulated on his “unitary executive theory”. By adopting this flawed bill, Congress has now ensnared Bush in a process which he cannot back out on. Congressional investigation into the Gonzalez handling of the approval of the surveillance program from Ashcroft in 2004 becomes highly relevant to this. Unitary executive and executive privilege cannot be invoked to stop legitimate Congressional investigations in an area where they are considering legislation.

Of course, that still assumes these people in Congress have any spine or principles. We’re still waiting for the evidence of that.

Are you serious? I reach the opposite conclusion: Now that the Dems are complicit in shredding the Constitution, they can’t hold Abu accountable for doing the same. What ‘legitimate Congressional investigations’ can they have now, except to investigate where they lost their own brains? No need for any more hearings; they were a joke anyway. They have already said that Abu won’t be charged with perjury. No impeachment for him, no censure, just more power.

I’m trying to hold out some hope that the Dems have not completely sold out. Otherwise any more activism is futile anyway. Whether the Bill necessarily “shreds the Constitution” as you say is not prima facie true. FISA in 1978 was the first time Congress asserted control in the area of Fourth Amendment protections in the area of eavedropping in the area of foreign relations. There is some unfortunate lower court language that says the Fourth Amendment does not apply in this area. That is where this unitary executive concept is drawing some power. The other courts more recently have held that US citizens don’t have standing to challenge Bush’s eavesdropping programs unless they have proof they have actually been wiretapped.

The biggest problem i see with this new bill is how you enforce it because it is not a self enforcing law. I don’t trust Bush not to put into effect a surveillance program which snoops on US citizens and uses this law as a pretext to avoid accountability. That’s different from being patently unconstitutional. I am as dismayed as you are that the people in Congress would put this amount of trust in this President. But I’m willing to give them the benefit of some doubt that they might be able to use this and work toward some greater end in six months. Anyway, if Bush vetos this bill, it’s all moot anyway. And maybe they know he will.

[Mod Note; and the link to your website is where?]