I don't mean to get off-topic, but I emailed my senator to vote against the FISA bill and this is what she sent. I thought Glenn and the rest of you would find this response from her insightful because she is one of the Democrats that's caving, and she's supposed to offer an alternative to Kit Bond, my other senator, on this issue. If you read nothing else, this is her key statement:

"I just don’t think we should punish these companies for their good-faith reliance on government assurances that they were assisting in a legal effort to combat terrorism. If the government violated our surveillance laws by eavesdropping without the necessary warrants, then it is the Administration – not the telecoms – that needs to be held accountable."

I emailed her back Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's (the Republican appointee presiding over the case) ruling that “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

Of course she did not respond to the second email. Anyway, here is her full response:

Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On February 12, 2008, after months of debate, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S.2248) by a vote of 68-29. I voted in favor of this effort to modernize the 30-year-old FISA in order to allow us to effectively monitor terrorist communications overseas.

As the FISA Amendments Act was debated on the Senate floor, I voted in favor of three amendments introduced by Senator Feingold (D-WI), all of which sought to add further safeguards against Executive Branch surveillance on innocent Americans. Unfortunately, these amendments failed to garner enough votes to pass. However, the Senate-passed FISA Amendments Act does include several measures to improve our national security without violating the constitutionally protected privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. For example, it would require the government to obtain a warrant whenever the target of surveillance is a U.S. citizen as well as bolster the authority of the FISA courts to oversee the eavesdropping activities of the National Security Agency.

As you may know, I joined 18 other Democrats in voting against Senator Dodd’s (D-CT) amendment to remove provisions granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies (telecoms) that cooperated with the Bush Administration’s wiretapping program. Please keep in mind that this is a limited immunity that applies solely to the telecoms, not the government. I just don’t think we should punish these companies for their good-faith reliance on government assurances that they were assisting in a legal effort to combat terrorism. If the government violated our surveillance laws by eavesdropping without the necessary warrants, then it is the Administration – not the telecoms – that needs to be held accountable. That’s why I supported Senator Specter’s (R-PA) amendment, which would have substituted the federal government in place of telecoms as the defendant in lawsuits, allowing existing legal actions to move forward in an appropriate manner. While this measure was rejected, the underlying legislation would still allow citizens to sue the government for past violations and telecoms for future violations of the new law. As your United States Senator, I remain determined to get to the bottom of any government misconduct.

Currently, the Senate-passed FISA legislation needs to be reconciled with the House-passed version. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to debate this important issue.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other matters of interest or concern to you.

All best,

Senator Claire McCaskill

I am only typing this to find my prior post.

I agree with the rationale behind the article, but the comment s regarding ethanol from sugar being a cleaner fuel are confusing.

The link to the WSJ article then links to a Science journal article that says the conversion of grasslands and forest to cornfields is what makes their net impact worse (than if we had just used fossil fuels?). If most of Cuba is not currently producing sugar, won't a lot of forest and grassland be mowed under to grow sugar and thus produce the net negative impact?

These raids are abominable and hideous, but c'mon! The RNC Welcoming Committee is stupid enough to advertise on its website:

Tier One: Establish 15-20 blockades, utilizing a diversity of tactics, creating an inner and outer ring around St. Paul’s Excel Center, where the RNC is to take place.

Tier Two: Immobilize the delegates’ transportation infrastructure, including the busses that are to convey them.

Tier Three: Block the five western bridges connecting the Twin Cities.

If you do these things, or if you announce that you are going to do these things, the police are going to take action. That's all there is to it.

These fake revolutionaries need to get a clue.

The goal in this instance is just to block off the convention, but there is no way that is going to happen without violent action. The goals of this supposedly nonviolent group inevitably require violent action for them to succeed.

Would you want every bridge going in and out of your city to be blocked off?

It doesn't justify the cops' behavior. Fuck those cops. But when you advertise shit like that on your website, and then groups form who admit to being part of the RNC Welcoming Committee, the consequences are just fucking self-evident in a post-9/11 country.

Idiots.