For anyone who wants to understand as much as possible about the nature of classified domestic spying and how modern digital technology has created the need for a re-evaluation of how we enforce the Fourth Amendment (which are the mostly-hidden issues underlying the public FISA debate, because we have no access to the classified details), there is an outstanding, precise, and crystal clear explanation and overview available from the experienced David Kris, in a recent unclassified paper:

Http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/1115_nationalsecurity_kris/1115_nationalsecurity_kris.pdf

There is also an eye-opening examination of, and warning about, the potential for introduced insecurities and vulnerability to hacking within our domestic communications network, that such wholesale secret spying access to that network, as championed by this White House and their Republican and Democratic enablers via FISA revisions, likely poses, from experts at Sun Microsytems, here:

Http://research.sun.com/people/slandau/PAA.pdf

An excerpt from that Sun research paper:

"The August 2007 Protect America Act changes U.S. law to allow warrantless foreign intelligence wiretapping from within the U.S. of any communications believed to include one party located outside the United States. Monitoring international traffic requires an effective way to identify whether the communication starts or ends outside the United States, a problem that is not easy to solve either on today's Internet, or on the telephone network. The new law could lead to potential overcollection of purely domestic communications. Thus the U.S. government is creating three distinct serious security risks: danger of exploitation of the system by unauthorized users, danger of criminal misuse by trusted insiders, and danger of misuse by government agents."

The core provisions of August's PAA are what would be made permanent "law" (along with immunity) if the Senate Intelligence Committee bill passes. Note that the House already has a FISA bill passed (the RESTORE Act), yet per my preceding comment here quoting the Congressional Record, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell (and Cheney, and Bond, and Rockefeller, and Pelosi) all seem to be writing that bill off in favor of having the House immediately rubberstamp whatever the Senate passes, exactly as it all went down in August with the PAA (with the complicity of Reid and Pelosi at the behest of the White House - a pre-arranged outcome for which Reid and Pelosi have never yet taken responsibility, as they have continued to deceptively pass the buck to avoid taking the blame for relinquishing their legislative leadership powers to the Executive Branch).

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/feds-must-exami.html

John Edwards: Your latest ad asks "What's happened to the Democratic Party?" You may well ask. These issues of corporate domestic spying and Congressional blessing of secret corporate lawbreaking, like the issue of corporate campaign donations your ad addresses, are crying out for condemnation from prominent Democrats who value our Constitution more than their political party.

Here's what I think I heard this evening on C-SPAN, from Harry Reid on the Senate floor:

1. There will only be a couple of hours of debate tomorrow morning (sometime after 9:30 a.m.) on the Senate Judiciary Committee's amendment offered by Patrick Leahy today, which would substitute an immunity-free version of a FISA bill, including a number of amendments to the spying provisions, for the Senate Intelligence Committee's immunity-laden bill that is already the "regular order" of the Senate (S. 2248). Leahy's amendment would need 51 Senators approving to pass, or 60 Senators if the Republicans filibuster, which they would, unless Reid helps them to avoid that - see #2. There will be other amendments offered as well, including one from Sheldon Whitehouse.

2. If I can believe my ears, Reid then went on to matter-of-factly state that the Leahy (SJC) amendment would then (after a short debate on Thursday) be "tabled" (killed)... Here's Rule XXII of the Senate (see Paragraph 1):

Http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.php

As I understand a motion to table, it is used when a committee (or majority leader) is opposed to an amendment, and wants to "efficiently" dispose of the measure, and the motion to table is nondebatable. It may be asserted against a motion to amend (i.e., the Senate Judiciary version of the FISA bill, in this case). It takes priority over other amendments or debates, and is considered in advance of the underlying, pending amendment to which it is applied. Only if it fails (by simple majority) does debate and action on the underlying amendment continue; otherwise, it stops debate on, and disposes of the amendment with prejudice.

If I heard this right, this is Harry Reid flexing his muscles and playing hardball against Chris Dodd and our Constitution, on behalf of Dick Cheney, the Republican Party, and powerful lawbreaking corporations, among others, and all the Senators know this is coming tomorrow (including Obama and Clinton).

I also heard about the last 10 minutes of Chris Dodd on the Senate floor this evening, quoting James Madison and passionately standing his ground. [Cardin also spoke - not sure what he's up to, though. Bond and Rockefeller were also scheduled to speak before the Senate adjourned at about 7:40 p.m., ET.] Dodd is prepared to do everything he can tomorrow to stop the Intelligence Committee bill, and is urging his colleagues, in the strongest possible terms, to stand with him to uphold the rule of law. Dodd pointed out that he has never conducted a filibuster before in his entire Senate career.

Dianne Feinsten spoke earlier this afternoon about this issue (I don't know what she said). She is a pivot point in this debate (or was in December), and apparently still has an amendment or two which may affect how things shake out on the underlying bill. [In December, if her proposed immunity amendment didn't pass, she stated she would oppose the SIC bill, which was a turnaround from her vote in the intelligence committee itself.]

The fix, however, may already be in.

P.S. Calling data is defined under FISA (aka, the law) as "content."