All Democrats were willing to fix the problem you're talking about. They offered legislation that would have done exactly that. But the administration claimed they wanted far more chagnes than just that, and instead of doing what they should have done -- given them the bill that fixed the only real problem and then forced him to veto it, in which case this alleged "gap" would have been the fault of the veto -- they vastly expanded his eavesdropping powers in ways having nothing to do with this supposed FISA gap.

It isn't just stupid on the merits, but stupid politically, too.

No snark intended, I'm really confused by your scare quotes around "gap" and labeling it as alleged. In your interview with Dodd, you note even Feingold concedes it is real, right?

Anyway, if you say this version passed by the Senate today vastly expands Bush's surveillance powers, I believe you. But Lederman's piece didn't convince me that this was necessarily the case. I look forward to your dissection when you have the time for it.

Sorry, I missed your link a few pages back. If this is true:

The President's warrantless surveillance program required that one party to any intercepted communication had to be a member of Al-Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The legislation adopted last night would drop that requirement. It would permit warrantless surveillance of any person "reasonably believed" to be abroad, regardless of whether that person was communicating with people in the United States.

The legislation would override a decision sometime earlier this year by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, which had found illegal at least a portion of the Administration's surveillance program after it was submitted for court review.

"This bill means that it will be lawful for the government to listen in on your communications whenever you speak to a person abroad, even when you and that person are suspected of no wrongdoing and of no ties to a terrorist. No court is empowered to provide the necessary checks and balances because that eavesdropping does not even require a court order," said CDT Senior Counsel and Director of CDT's Program on Freedom, Security & Technology, Gregory T. Nojeim.

Then all the fury is more than justified.

Is that information available anywhere, or would that mean secret lists of FOLKS WHO HAVE FRIENDS and FAMILY ABROAD? Mind, I'm not being extreme here, because we all know a list like that just goes into the 'files', and soon the only folks not named in such files are the ones who don't know/speak with anyone outside the US borders.

If this law really means the govt need not identify any reason -- that there is no need to even suspect terrorism activity -- then I'd bet 95% of the people commenting here are subject to having their electronic communications intercepted without a warrant. How many well-educated, politically active people online do not exchange email and/or telephone calls with persons in foreign countries? I do routinely, with a relatively significant number of people. And one of them is in...France!

But I'm still finding it hard to believe this legislation could actually means that. Jim Webb? He's not craven, not driven by fear of anybody, and could give a rip if he ticks off George Bush. It is simpy not computing.

Or, we could comprehend it NOW. Jesus Christ.

Look, I don't know if this legislation is the disaster some think it is in terms of virtually unlimited Executive authority to intercept any electronic communications any U.S. person makes with any foreign party. But *if* the FISA court really did recently rule there is something Bush cannot do that we reasonably should let him do, then I can understand why it was important to get something passed before Congress goes into recess.

And I've never before heard of a sunset provision as brief as 6 mos. If, after Glenn and the whole world of constitutional and civil libertarian enclaves rip this thing to shreds it should not be renewed. I've seen some people make arguments that it is on its face bad, and maybe it is. But I want to see what some sharp legal minds have to say in the next 48 hours before I assume it truly is as awful as some reports (without much if any analysis) say it is. The one thing I keep coming back to is finding hard to believe Jim Webb would vote in favor of a bill so loathsome, and exceedingly difficult to believe he did so because he is a captive to Beltway wisdom and afraid of the Republicans.

This is Lederman later yesterday:

2. The amendment means, I think, that as far as statutory law is concerned, all of our international phone calls and e-mails can be surveilled, without exception, as long as the surveillance is in some sense "directed at" a person overseas. As I asked yesterday, is that OK from a Fourth Amendment perspective?

If this is what the FISA amendments mean -- and Marty is writing of being surveilled sans warrant or any judicial oversight -- then that is not ok. And is (or should be deemed), totally unconstitutional and violative of the 4th.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/08/two-questions-about-fisa-amendment.html

I admit to having a hard time believing such a thing could really have passed. It just seems so extreme I can't imagine how Bush got enough Democrats to go along with it.