Thanks, Mona, for the link to Anonymous Liberal:

What's important to understand is that this bill would allow much broader surveillance than what the Bush administration has so far acknowledged doing. Until the administration actually discloses what activities it has engaged in and promises to abide by FISA, I just don't see how any self-respecting member of Congress could vote to give the administration additional powers.

The administration is now 18 days late in providing the Senate Judiciary Committee with documents it's subpoenaed and it's been over 2 months since the House Intelligence Committee requested documents related to the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program. I don't think it'll be to go forward with these investigations if this bill passes the House (imo, it should not have been considered before these investigations were completed).

And thanks, lupurcus, for the CDT link:

The new authority in the Senate bill would expire in 180 days. Therefore, Congress will be required to re-visit the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in February of next year. The Administration is expected at that time to push for a more comprehensive re-write of the intelligence surveillance laws.

That's 9 months before the elections. How in the world will the Democrats withstand the pressure of the executive-authority-hungry administration then, if they can't all hang together now?

The House just started debating the bill. C-Span (where it says Campaign 2008) http://www.cspan.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

I believe that's what Hunter was referring to. I don't fully understand the foreign-to-foreign-through-the-US issue, either, but anyway, this is from Glenn's second update (interview w/ Sen. Dodd):

GG: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant -- so why not just say "OK, we fixed this gap and here's our bill and if you veto it, and there's a terrorist attack, then it's your responsibility"?

CD: Hello? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. ...

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwest's refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest's region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

-----

‘‘(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. [though the person can challenge the legality of the directive] S. 1927 http://tinyurl.com/2s7ova

The House is voting now.

Yea/Nay

227/183

No roll call available yet.

Glenn said he'll post the entire transcript of the interview in a few days, so no one knows what he asked yet.

41 Dems voted for Bush's FISA bill: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=836

Orin Kerr:

The first change is a clarification that FISA warrants are not needed for "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." That is, if the government is monitoring someone outside the United States from a telecom switch in the U.S., it can listen in on the person's calls and read their e-mails without obtaining a FISA warrant first. The Fourth Amendment may still require reasonableness in this setting when one or more people on the call of e-mail are inside the U.S. or are United States citizens, but there is no statutory warrant requirement.

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1186332672.shtml

(JaO comments on the Fourth Amendment question in the Lederman post you pointed to.)

Glenn wrote: I kind of got the impression that neither Dodd nor anyone else with whom he interacts (the older, senior level of Congressional Democrats who have been there forever) ever really thinks about most of these questions at all.

These are not the kinds of questions the MSM asks. Thanks.

DCLaw1, I wonder if it would also help to compare the bill that was rejected – H.R. 3356 - http://cryptome.org/hr3356-talk.htm with the bill that was passed - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927: ? The former contains specific language about communications that pass through the US, the latter does not. I don't understand that.

Margalis - Glenn mentioned earlier that he's traveling and post will be sporadic for a few days. I'm amazed he was able to get the transcript up so fast.

Karen M -

Article II, section 3, of the Constitution grants the President authority to call for an extraordinary, or "special," session of Congress after it has already adjourned [he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them . . . ] However, while the President can force the Congress to meet he cannot force them to act. He can state the reason for his calling them into session and place before them and the nation his request. Congress would still retain the authority as an independent branch of government [HA!] to act or not act on the President's request, and to transact other business if it so wishes. http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly67.asp