But the fiber optics revolution has sent more and more international communications by land and undersea cable, forcing the agency to seek company cooperation to get access.

After the disclosure two years ago that the N.S.A. was eavesdropping on the international communications of terrorism suspects inside the United States without warrants, more than 40 lawsuits were filed against the government and phone carriers. As a result, skittish companies and their lawyers have been demanding stricter safeguards before they provide access to the government and, in some cases, are refusing outright to cooperate, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html

To grant me a few minutes to see that question and also to ask john@johnedwards.com to take the lead. ;-)

The Senate will resume consideration of the Rockefeller amendment at 3:00 before it votes on cloture at 4:30. Should be available here on C-Span 2: http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

"Toensing's use of the Aldrich Ames case is similarly misleading. The joint CIA/FBI investigation of Ames, a CIA analyst ultimately convicted of espionage, also took place prior to the 1995 FISA amendment requiring warrants for physical searches. Therefore, when the Clinton administration ordered investigators to go "into Aldrich Ames's house without a warrant," they did not -- as Toensing argued -- "carry out their authority" to bypass the FISA requirements, because FISA did not cover such searches.

"At the time of the Ames investigation, FISA did require warrants for wiretaps -- as it does now -- and there is ample evidence that the Clinton administration complied with those requirements."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220011

Glenn has a new liveblogging post up now.

Dodd!!!

Pryor, Aye

I don't think I'll be able to stand watching it. Well, not without a barfbag close by anyway.

If somehow a "short extension" (that Bush would not veto) were agreed to tomorrow. We can't have the Democrats putting us at risk of death like this, after all.

It looks like Landrieu didn't change her vote. So 4 Dems voted for cloture. Here's the roll call: http://tinyurl.com/2fb6b6

Here's the roll call on the extension vote: http://tinyurl.com/yrwsj8

House Republicans Seek 14-Day Extension of Surveillance Law

"Smith declined to discuss details of the FISA negotiations. But GOP aides said Republicans wanted a two-week extension. “We are being told the White House would not veto a two-week extension,” said a senior House Republican." More: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=cqmidday-000002662586

It's being debated now by the House on Cspan: http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Save face, Bush & friends!

It sounds like Bush won't veto the shorter extension. Have a good drinking game to play while listening to Bond and Chambliss whine about needing 60 votes for all PAA amendments? Bastards.

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

The Senate & House have come to an agreement and the Senate will take up the 15 day extension tomorrow. They'll also be working Monday and Super Tuesday due to all the time they've spent the last couple of days on PAA.

I don't understand this...

Reid introduced this on the 25th and it was read the 2nd time and placed on the calendar today: S.2557 A bill to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 until July 1, 2009.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02557:@@@X

“I think what we should do is extend the law for an extended period of time,” Reid said on the floor Tuesday. “We’ll extend it until there’s a new president.”...

“At this juncture, I will take any extension that doesn’t include retroactive immunity,” said Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who, along with other Democrats, is trying to strip the immunity provision from the bill. Other liberal Democrats, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Russ Feingold (Wis.), echoed similar sentiments as well.

“I certainly don’t consider it an endorsement [of the law],” Feingold said of backing a longer-term extension. “It’s not my first choice and it’s not what I’m fighting for.”

A longer-term extension is receiving a cool response from the GOP. Some Republicans are concerned that if a Democrat wins the White House and Democrats expand their majorities in Congress, they may lose the edge in the debate.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-dems-consider-extension-of-gop-wiretapping-legislation-2008-01-30.html

Any thoughts on this?

Feingold "Pleased" with Surveillance Bill Deal

"...Next week, we have an opportunity to fix this bill, but only if senators stand up to the administration’s attempted power grab and support my and other amendments to put in place checks and balances. If the final bill produced by the Senate doesn’t protect the privacy of law abiding Americans or if it includes immunity for telecom companies, I will strongly oppose it and will vote against cutting off debate on it.”

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/2008/02/feingold_pleased_with_surveill.php

So, a filibuster is still possible?