Setting aside my sense of disbelief about the mysterious turn of events this week (regarding both the stunning revelations in the WSJ on Monday and the subsequent emergence of principled resistance by the House Democratic leadership on FISA, shrewdly wielded and pivoted into offense, as Glenn rightly points out), some random observations...

1. DOJ's Ken Wainstein confirmed on 3/3 to the ABA - at least as I understand the euphemisms used in this debate - that it is not "eavesdropping on foreign-to-foreign calls without warrants" that needed fixing (FISA in fact has always allowed that for phone calls, if not for emails, Wainstein confirmed, even when done on U.S. soil) - but rather acquisition of foreign emails (to parties whose locations are unknown) stored on U.S.-located ISPs that are the problem that forced FISC intervention and a backlog of warrant applications last year. In other words, removing the need for individual FISC warrants for foreign emails stored on U.S. ISPs is the "modernization" fix that has the support of virtually everyone in Congress and that could easily be passed as a stand-alone measure, and which both pending FISA bills (and the PAA) include as part of their revisions to FISA.

[This issue is, I believe, Condatis, the genesis of the talking point claiming that the House bill "would extend protections we enjoy as Americans to foreign terrorists overseas" - because we are now collecting stored data of foreign terrorists on American soil from American companies which also store email data of Americans; the House bill requires using a terrorist group-based program order from FISC (not individualized warrants) in order to try to firewall off stored emails of Americans, with pre-approval from the court before operations commence (which the Senate bill doesn't require). The problem, of course, is that none of us can "prove" this point about emails on U.S. ISPs without access to classified information; however, debaters (and reporters) of good faith will acknowledge this development as meaningful if familiar enough with the testimony and parameters of the public debate, as should those entrusted with accurately informing the public about the import of the classified information to which they are privy.]

2. I was actually not particularly impressed by the content of the debate today from the Democrats - although I agree with Glenn about the confident tone of the majority's comments. Every single speaker seemed to use the same phrase about "providing all the tools" the IC needs - a phrase that now has me rolling my eyes every time I hear it. How much imagination does it take to rephrase things a little - to use more specific and meaningful language - especially when you're one of only about a dozen total speakers for your side in a limited debate? One speaker who did so, and also very meaningfully conveyed the import of the issue without stumbling or mumbling, I thought, was Jay Inslee of WA (so far I've only seen the end of Holt's statement). I credit Speaker Pelosi with getting into the details, though - she made some important, substantive points that indicate that she's been thinking about the issue. In general, I get the impression that the Constitutional concepts involved here are new or unfamiliar to many members, and that they are still feeling their way in the dark about what it all means.

Example: As many C-SPAN callers made refreshingly clear - in contrast to the C-SPAN moderator who kept trying to return the debate to its mistaken foundation every time a caller got some facts out about FISA (despite the media's blackout of the subject) - this debate is primarily about foreign intelligence collection taking place inside the United States. FISA's name brings with it a presumption - helped along at every turn by Republicans and the media - that we are talking about worldwide, or "foreign," foreign intelligence surveillance in general, instead of the actual issue of domestic-based foreign intelligence surveillance. How many Democrats educated their listeners today about this crucial difference, and explained the Fourth Amendment genesis and privacy principles underpinning the original FISA?

In the face of media silence or distortion, every Member of Congress who can get air time needs to quickly, clearly, accurately, and confidently convey these fundamentals to the public - not only for the benefit of the people, but to rebut the media's vague narrative about the "foreign intelligence" debate. Unfortunately, as usual I expect the House (and Senate) Democrats to disappear in silence for the next two weeks, leaving the public field of play to the White House and their media amplifiers (and to the casino mogul-funded FISA disinformation ads).

3. I was taken aback to hear Jane Harman say that Monday's Wall Street Journal expose revealed information that has not yet been given to Congress about Executive Branch surveillance activities (speaking for the Homeland Security committee she's on, if not the Intelligence Committee which she left a year ago). Where is the Congressional outrage about these sweeping, police-state surveillance and data-storage activities, if that's actually the case? My main hesitation about the new House bill is that it appears to assume that any and all "transactional" data about "suspect" Americans that the NSA decides to collect, store and analyze for "suspect" patterns is both legitimate ("reasonable" search and seizure) without court involvement, and a sound basis for a subsequent probable cause FISC warrant to target Americans who are in communication with foreigners (whether terrorism-related or not). I'm not at all clear on the intended (or unintended) limits or reach of such "ripples in a pond" data collection and link analysis in the House bill.

Congress ought to start lining up whistleblower hearings for April - and call in some NSA line workers while they're at it. For all the concern expressed about a "secret session" of Congress - why are the secret activities of the Executive Branch not of equal concern to the (admirable) "open government" proponents in the legislature?