As for the phrase "genuine privacy"; I relate that to things like the anti-administration New York Times, or Salon(!) being free to investigate, plan and publish stories expressing and opposing viewpoints. Unlike, say, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea.

I distinguish "genuine privacy concerns" from "frivolous privacy concerns" like the notion that my calls might be among the trillions of calls being data-mined for information.

Again, when I am doing something like passing through the nauseating and humiliating process of an airport security check, I never once think of blaming Dcik Cheney. I think of Richard Reid and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. I prefer to think of them in a very cold, dark, damp place. And hopefully being treated in a far worse manner, by more serious interrogators, than the frathouse/bozo/reservist enlisted personnel at Abu Grhaib.

@elephantman

You're not going to rebut me, are you?

...

-- Jordan Orlando?

I'm not even going to try! You, and just about all of the Salon readership can't be swayed on this. Nothing that I write can change your mind. You've got your candidate, Obama, who supports you on this issue.

Now, it is up to Obama, carrying this issue, to convince the voters in places like Shaker Heights OH, Warren MI, Orlando FL, Overland Park KS, and Lexington KY that his Senate vote for telcom lawsuits is the right one and that he should be our next Commander in Chief.

Anyone that supports

Anyone that supports the US torturing 'people' has forfeit their rights to complain when 'they' torture our people.

The bar was lowered, probably permanently.

Still, I'd love a chance to waterboard Muck-ass-ee and O'Reilly and McConnell, et all...

'Water in the nose after swimming' ehh. Do you swim upside down sir?

-- Pinky

Pinky, here is how "they treat us."

They hijack our airliners and fly them into downtown buildings.

They blow up our troops and contractors while we attempt to fix their electricity grids and oil pipelines.

They blow up our citizens while they sit on commuter trains.

They behead our security forces, and burn their bodies.

They kill our reporters and chop their heads off on videotape.

AND YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT OUR HAVING 'WATERBOARDED' THREE OF THEM?

Oh, and to the Salon reader who lives in Mahattan and whose spouse is a first-responder there...

Could you please remind Pinky that Michael Mukasey, a neighbor of yours, has a bit of knowledge and experience in the legal war on terror, as he was the presiding U.S. Distict Court Judge in the (first) World Trade center (bombing) attack case?

@Elephantdung

We will address that shortly. After January 2009 you will hard-pressed to find any Repugs in power anywhere...

-- Northwestwoods

Okay, then I would be more worried about terroists blowing me up. But first you have to get a guy named "Barack Hussein Obama" elected President.

Hey, I just thought of something else. Who else is there who supports telcom lawsuits? 'Cuz Barry gonna need a running mate. Chris Dodd? Cynthia McKinney? Noam Chomsky? Kucinich? How about Nader?

@Elephant ...

Your insistence that this vote is "...for telcom lawsuits ..." is willfully belligerent and argumentative.

I have no horse in the race of whether or not a telecom gets successfully sued in a civil court.

But under no circumstances do I want to be told that American citizens are being barred from legal recourse and redress against misconduct undertaken solely on the basis of the say so of a nameless bureaucrat. Do you remember "Trust ... but verify."?

Did not the Republicans lay claim to being the "...party of Law and Order..." for the last 50 years? Was that only when it was convenient?

I do not want, and will fight against, enactment of laws which explicitly indemnify people from wrongdoing on the basis of an unelected official offering them a free pass to engage in activity which, we are told, is not reviewable by court nor congress.

This is not about politically framing this argument to make it more appealing to a segment of the electorate. This is not about positioning the ad slogans or capturing a cheap thrills newscycle in order to succesfully re-brand the issue for a margin of positivity. This is not about voting "for telecom lawsuits," god dammit, and if you are mendacious enough to refuse to look at that in order to score cheap points off the "loyal opposition," then you will have proved Adlai Stephenson correct: "In a Democracy, people usually get the government they deserve."

I have nothing to say about the lawsuits currently in progress, so please shut the fuck up about them, unless you plan to bring up an argument that is not completely superficial.

In general, please take your attempts at argument by soundbite elsewhere.

Should you choose to engage on less demonstrably juvenile terms, by all means, do so.

-- nick

You know, there is room here for a principled national security debate, and for honest people to have differing views on legislation. It is always attractive to side with honest people who favor a more limited role for govenrment, and more "freedom." As I presume many of you are. (I just happen to value 'freedom from terrorism.')

But when somebody starts to whine about lawsuits as a means of settling national policy, you can be pretty sure about where their money is coming from.

You'll rarely find me engaged in any emotional debate about abortion, or the details of fiscal policy, or many of the other things that are presumed to divide red-state America from blue-state America.

But in my mind, the surest way to separate Republicans from Democrats, and the surest way (in my opinion) to turn moderate Democratic voters into moderate Republican voters, is to separate people based on support for lawsuit reform. And to restore government by legislature instead of government by lawsuit.