...the National Review appreciates that they'll be under surveillance as well as the rest of us.

...they even understand what they're advocating and where it will inevitably lead.

...if these idiots realize they've already lost the argument and the country.

It is unreasonable to apply restrictive interpretations of the 4th ammendment in these cases.

Define precisely what constitutes an "insidious terrorist plot", then we can talk about whether or not the Bill of Rights is too 'restrictive'.

Otherwise, please just admit you prefer outright authoritarian dictatorship and quit wasting everyone's time.

Glenn must have had one shitty childhood.

Asks the commentator who names himself after a tyrant known for more for his pedastry than accomplishment.

I'm quite serious here. Has there ever been a point in our history as a country where 'big business' has so effectively dictated public policy before now?

What are the practical impacts of all this, both in Congress and amongst the rest of us?

Precisely how hardball can/should we expect the Democratic leadership to play now, particularly given the Speaker has gone on record as saying at least the House will not pass any teleco immunity?

Rather sad to see how far we've fallen as a country.

The EFF still doesn't know what is being done, nor will it after the case is done.

Anyone care to guess which it is? The fact what little is known, namely that the laws of the US have been knowingly violated and the Fourth Amendment guarantees have been ignored by the current Administration, doesn't seem to register with him.

Let's unpack this development a bit.

Yes, the Majority Leader has made the vow to bring the proposed legislation to the floor for a vote...a month from now.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004502.php

In any case, the Senate Judiciary Committee still has to do its own mark-up of the proposed legislation and Senator Whitehouse has stated rather clearly he'll be doing is his own mark-up of it; whether that's good or bad, no-one knows.

Reid and Durbin have also stated they want to see the legal documentation the Administration provided the Committee about the surveillance program before casting their votes, meaning they might still be pressured to keep it off the table. Even Feinstein is expressing some reluctance now and Senator Bond is unsure how willingly his own caucus will go along with something as draconian is this mess.

By all means, Reid should be called to task for this breach of procedure. But can we look at this with clear eyes and please save the Chicken Little routines for Pixar movies?

Yet another indication that it is not in shooter's character to tell the whole, unvarnished truth, especially when it isn't in his interest to do so.

I would attribute it more to genetics than 'character', primarily because I don't believe the entity in question actually has one.

Apparently this group's ineffectuality needs something to focus on, rather like vandals breaking windows in Newark.

Says the character who acknowledges he keeps company with book burners and the sort who leave nooses on people's lawns.

You need help, friend. Really.

Whether the current regime is Tehran is smarter and more strategic than us (which offends and terrifies the Chickenhawks that there's someone smarter and smoother than them) or more irrational and violent than us (which plain terrifies the pea(sized)nuts gallery no end that they aren't the biggest and badest), both rationales aim at providing some excuse for the Administration to launch some kind of attack on Iran proper. Ultimately, both are based on the basest of human emotions - fear, hate, and jealousy - and as such don't depend upon consistency in detail.

The question is how to effectively counter that kind of visceral, emotive narrative. Reason doesn't work that well (as The Major and annoyemoose amply show), and unfortunately there are too many in Congress who would likely side with the Administration should it choose to launch air strikes. One is left to wonder if the probable disasters that would come from such an action are actually the desired goal of the Administration, the possibility of loosing over 100,000 US troops and all international standing being a cheap price for a small bump up in the President's approval ratings.

Certainly highlighting just how crazy these narratives are helps, but is there anything else to be done? If Congress goes along with it (as seems rather likely now), the Administration could start channelling General Jack T. Ripper and declare Iran a threat to our "precious bodily fluids" as a reason to attack.

I for one would like to avoid such an end.

Nabalzbbfr on the other hand is a full-on Nazi.

I think its more accurate s/he's a "nihlist", not a fascist. Note s/he doesn't call for the primacy of the State over all civil life, nor preach the sort of racist claptrap the Nazis trafficked in.

On that other hand, s/he does call for war without purpose and death without end. Hence I'd called s/he a nihlist.

Of course we'd all likely be much happier if s/he would simply air out their own braincase.

Is the Administration actually trying to get the Religious Right nuts to break with them and the elephant party?

I personally wouldn't weep for such a break-up, but it doesn't really seem in-character for the President.

BUT...BUT...BUT...9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING!

Obviously it hasn't changed their essential cowardice, or the sad fact they're supporting a messianic nihlist who doesn't care one whit for them or his office.

Absent a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, it is the legal obligation of any corporation or individual to presume any such request by the Executive Branch to be legally binding.

Explain how you come to this conclusion please within our present democratic republican form of government. Your 'conclusion' sounds unhealthily like an admission of fascist tendencies.