One aspect being overlooked in this debate is this legislation legitimizes the technological infrastructure that makes sweeping warrantless surveillance possible.

Given that the apparatus is apparently here to stay, one would be foolish to presume that its use will be limited to to international communications. It will take just one act of home-grown terrorism for the government the expand the use of warrantless wiretapping to domestic communications.

Slippery slope, indeed.

One might argue that the threat of domestic terrorism isn't what it once was given our collective focus on the foreign threat. One would be mistaken. Consider the conditions that motivated Timothy McVeigh (Joel Dyer wrote an excellent book called Harvest of Rage in 1997 examining the motivations of the Militia Movement). If anything, the economic and social conditions for those people in McVeigh's demographic group have worsened in the intervening 10 years.

Consider also the fact that under an Obama administration (assuming he keeps his campaign promise--I know, a large assumption) we will soon have several tens of thousands of combat veterans returning from the Global War on Terror. A small but significant percentage of whom, like McVeigh, will be psychologically scarred, have legitimate grievances against their government (that will likely be under-addressed due to the budget constrictions left behind by Bush) and possess the necessary skills for wreaking serious havoc here at home.

It is a stone cold certainty that within the next eight years this column will be vigorously fighting the expansion of the domestic surveillance state.

Yeah crooked_teeth, who says Gore whould have been a one-term president?

It's just as likely that he would have been re-elected in 2004. Moreover, his awesomeness would have surely resulted in Joe Lieberman winning the 2008 democratic nomination.

...um, hold on a sec....

Nevermind.

Glenn is correct in pointing out that the best way to combat these abuses is to reduce the issue to a binary choice: You're either for the rule of law or against it.

It is worth pointing out, however, that the problem goes far deeper. We have a broad historical trend, going back decades and continuing today, wherein we are moving towards a literal Imperial Presidency. The Bush administration has just taken us much farther and far faster than any of its predecessors.

This trend, for the most part, has occurred within the framework of the law. Too many bad laws have been passed (the War Powers Act is the most egregious one, perhaps)that move power away from the representatives of the people towards the executive. And let's please not forget that the former FISA law, as superior as it is to what we now have, was far from good. The FISA court was all but a rubber stamp on executive action. Who here can say with certainty that abuses didn't take place with the court's compliance.

So yes, let's all do everything we can to restore the rule of law. But, at the same time let's do more to explain why the trend towards an Imperial Presidency exists and to address ways to counter the trend.

Thus we have the extraordinary fact that a policy that has long been favored by the vast majority of Americans -- even-handedness in the Israel-Palestinian conflict -- is one that no mainstream American politician of any national significance can espouse without triggering an immediate end to their political career.

And people wonder why 50% or more of Americans don't bother to vote. Further, those that do vote, particularly those that vote for the two dominant parties in spite of this dynamic, bear at least a small but significant share of the blame for its continuation.

"The case for a backward-looking campaign to punish Democrats generally or specifically for their sins in the Bush era makes little sense five months before it mercifully ends. Let's win big in November, keep the Big Tent up, see what the blessed new year brings...."

And then what Ed? As Greenwald and several others have pointed out in the past, this argument can be reduced to the following:

1) Wait until we elect a new Democratic president.

2) Wait until we increase our congressional majority in the midterm election.

3) Wait until we re-elect our Democratic president.

4) Wait until we increase our congressional majority in the midterm elections.

5) Return to step 1 and repeat.

Meanwhile, Rome continues to burn. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and innocent civilians in Third World countries continue to die at the sharp point of American foreign policy.

The Democratic Party, as it is currently managed, is the number one problem facing anyone who cares about the substantive systemic reform of our political institutions. Indeed, its primary function as the center-leftwing of the American Big Business Party is to put the brakes on such reform.

"You know why Stenny Hoyer keeps winning elections? Because Stenny Hoyer is a pro-choice, supporter of affirmative action, gay rights, who does spectacular constituent service work and raises millions for fellow Democrats in Congress."

Hmmm,"raises millions for fellow Democrats in Congress". From whom, Shooter McGavin, for whose personal aggrandizement and at what cost to my civil liberties? These are no longer hypothetical questions.

The press will undoubtedly use criticisms like the one Glenn lays out today to justify their professionalism. "See," they'll say, "we're getting hammered by critics on the Left and the Right. We must be doing our jobs well."

If the press' real job was to keep the public informed of the critical issues of the day, an alternative explanation would be obvious. The fact that everyone along the entire political spectrum is always upset with them shows that the press is really, really bad at uncovering and presenting the truth.

But of course, keeping the public informed is not the press' primary task. It is, rather, to attract potential consumers to the advertisers who ultimately pay their salaries. What better way to do this than through these manufactured "controversies".