So if Dubya SAYS that Barack Obama is an "agent" of, I don't know, Lesotho, then he IS one, and suddenly it's "reasonable" to think he might have foreign intelligence data on his computer, right?

Well, not according to the 4th amendment or the way that FISA is supposed to work. I suppose that if enough FISA judges are dishonest and Bushite enough, it doesn't really matter what either the constitution of standing statute says. But if they are honest and competent, then such an assertion by Bush or his people would be immediately rejected by FISA if it lacked accompanying evidence compelling enough to constitute being "reasonable suspicion".

I.e. it doesn't matter what the circumstances are, for the president to assert that anyone is a suspected terrorist or accomplice and be able to lawfully spy on them, he has to provide solid--and lawfully obtained--evidence demonstrating it beyond a reasonsable doubt, and then get the FISA judges to issue him a warrant to do that. If he does not, or they reject his request, he simply cannot lawfully spy on them, PERIOD, as there is simply no constitutional or legal basis to do so (whatever specious claims Yoo & Co. make to the contrary).

Which is precisely why Bush refuses to work with FISA, because he knows that even its entirely conservative panel of judges would not be likely to issue some of the warrants that he might seek from them, because the evidence to justify them simply doesn't exist. And it is THIS arbitrary abuse of his powers that makes these programs blatantly illegal and dangerous.

And for any troll who would counter this by saying that Bush is now working with FISA, well, two counterarguments. One, it does not explain or justify the spying that he did before he claimed to be working with FISA again. And two, how do we know with any certaintly that he is actually now complying with FISA? I'm sure that he's been going through FISA more often now than he did previously, for situations that are likely to get approval, but how do we know that he's not just doing this as cover, while continuing to bypass FISA for the spying that he's most interested in? Can anyone prove that he isn't?

Oh, wait, Lanny Davis--a partisan "Democrat" no less--assures us that this isn't happening, so I guess that everything's nice and kosher now. Never mind.

It's abundantly clear to me why Davis was sent out to reassure us that everything just fine with these programs. Because, of course, everything's not. And anyone who takes Davis as his word is an idiot who isn't fit to be taken seriously. His shilling for Lieberman and Libby pretty much took care of that. And the fact that someone like Davis WAS chosen to reassure us is, to me, a sure sign that they are continuing to illegally spy on Americans despite claiming not to. Why get a known liar and shill to support you publically except to lie and shill for you?

This isn't rocket science.

Agreed. Of course any such new provisions would be blatantly unconstitutional. The question is one, whether congress will agree to them (and god help them if they do now that Dems are in charge), and two, if they're passed and made into law, what the courts end up saying about them (as with the MCA).

If we lived in a time where respect for the constitution still meant much, then all of this would be moot. Sadly, we don't live in such a time, and are faced with the triple peril of all three branches not being reliable in properly upholding and defending the constitution. Scary indeed.

Still, I'm just laying out the potential pessimistic scenario, which doesn't necessarily mean that things will play out this way. Congress may well reject these changes, and even if it doesn't, the courts may well overturn them eventually.

But the fact that neither is as likely as we'd like to believe that they should be should be a source for concern for anyone who's been paying attention. Dems might have won the election and appear set to win big again in '08, but even if that happens (and much can happen between now and then to change that), but we're nowhere near in the clear yet.

And I fully expect the GOP to use this against Dems in the '08 election. I.e. why won't they let us spy on Osama? It didn't work in '06, but they'll be better at it in '08, and the less that Dems try to investigate and overturn the abuses of the past 6 years from now until the election, the more power that they'll be granting the other side on this issue.

Is there a word that combines cowardly, unprincipled and stupid all in one? Because that's what Dems would be if they let this one sit unchallenged. I.e. cowardly for not standing up to the administration, unprincipled for not standing up for the constitution, and stupid for letting a political opportunity slip through their hands. Done right, opposing Bush on this isn't just the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do. Why don't or won't they get that?

I think that the Lanny Davis angle bears further exploration here. A lot more exploration. As in fifth columnist congressional Dems within our midst exploration. I'm dead serious.