A FISA filibuster by Chris Dodd can be ended by a (successful, 60-vote) cloture motion vote, after a couple of days delay, requested at any time. The Democrats didn't wait for Dodd's filibuster to start: they filed their cloture motion last Friday, which means a vote on Tuesday on whether (or not) to close down Dodd's filibuster of the FISA bill after all amendments are voted on.

[Though the final FISA bill's composition is still (publicly) unknown, it is clear that it will contain Rockefeller's lawbreaking pass for corporations, because of Lieberman's defection and Cheney's tiebreaking vote, not to mention Rockefeller voting with the always-unified-as-partisans-when-it-counts Republicans; Specter would only consider crossing over if it wouldn't change the outcome.] Dodd's only other option to delay matters is to object to every piece of business in the Senate and to force cloture motions for anything the Senate wants to do, whether FISA-related or not.

Thus, the crucial vote now is the vote on the Democratic cloture motion that would finally shut down Chris Dodd (and his filibuster, not to mention his original dishonored hold), which would lead to the passage of FISA with immunity - a despicable, undemocratic outcome, but one that only 41 American Senators are needed to stop in its tracks.

The authoritarian Senator John D. Rockefeller IV not only dismisses the views of his West Virginia constituents, he dismisses advice from the most-knowledgeable technical experts about the destruction he hopes to inflict on this nation. Almost certainly barely computer literate himself, Rockefeller has decided he knows better than some of the world's most respected communications network security experts from Sun Microsystems, SRI International, and leading universities:

[T]he 2007 US Protect America Act introduces fundamental technical vulnerabilities into the nation's communications infrastructure. These risks should worry law enforcement and the national security community at least as much as they worry civil liberties advocates.

[snip]

The technical risks created by unsupervised wiretapping on this scale are enormously serious (and reason enough to urge Congress to let this misguided law expire). - Matt Blaze, one of those (groundbreaking) security experts

Http://www.crypto.com/blog/wiretap_risks/

So say the real experts about the frighteningly-powerful digital domestic surveillance that would be inflicted on our infrastructure and on all Americans on a permanent basis if the bill Jay Rockefeller is bullying Harry Reid to force through the Senate becomes "law." Where was the congressional hearing featuring those experts? When did the oh-so-secretly-in-the-know Senate Intelligence Committee (or any other Congressional committee) listen to these computer security experts anytime in the six months since the PAA went into effect? Nowhere and never, that's where and when. Due diligence? What a sick joke.

41 Senators who believe in America - in our Constitution, including its Fourth Amendment, and the rule of law as put into effect by three, separate, co-equal branches of government, are needed next Tuesday to vote no on cloture for a FISA bill destined to contain Rockefeller's lawbreaking pass for his pals at some of America's largest corporations. Start counting, America. Here are thirteen Senators who have recently demonstrated that their allegiance to our nation's founding principles is in doubt, and whose votes on Tuesday will either start dismantling our Constitution (Aye on FISA-with-immunity cloture), or proudly defend and protect it (Nay on FISA-with-immunity cloture) from the machinations of those determined to do it harm:

Evan Bayh, Thomas Carper, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski, Benjamin Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, John D. Rockefeller IV, Ken Salazar

No Republicans in the Senate will stand up for America on Tuesday to defeat cloture on FISA (unless by some miracle the final bill doesn't contain corporate lawbreaking immunity). That's a given. Which means that at least one political party in America today is willing to surrender our Constitution in the name of power. Where are we if the other political party won't unite to defend our Constitution, and in turn, the inalienable human rights it's designed to protect from abuses of our government's (secret) military and police powers?

Bayh (202) 224-5623 phone, (202) 228-1377 fax

Carper (202) 224-2441 phone, (202) 228-2190 fax

Feinstein (202) 224-3841 phone, (202) 228-3954 fax

Inouye (202) 224-3934 phone, (202) 224-6747 fax

Johnson (202) 224-5842 phone, (605) 341-2207 fax

Landrieu (202)224-5824 phone, (202) 224-9735 fax

Lincoln (202) 224-4843 phone, (202) 228-1371 fax

Mikulski (202) 224-4654 phone, (202) 224-8858 fax

Nelson (FL) (202) 224-5274 phone, (202) 228-2183 fax

Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551 phone, (202) 228-0012 fax

Pryor (202) 224-2353 phone, (202) 228-0908 fax

Rockefeller, (202) 224-6472 phone, (202) 224-7665 fax

Salazar (202) 224-5852 phone, (202) 228-5036 fax