All of this discussion lately about FISA, the spinelessness of Democrats, and what I believe are false assumptions about the current version of FISA, has led me to an unfortunate and saddening conclusion: there is a profound lack of basic critical thinking skills even among (perhaps especially among) our highest echelons of power.

Take the run-up to war, as just one example of many. In 2002 and 2003, I was certainly in no position whatsoever to know the top-most secret information, or every detail of our intelligence community's assessments of Iraq. However, I could plainly see, somehow, and with only the benefit of news reports and what little the government factually put out into the public, that (1) not only did Saddam not have WMDs, and certainly was very far from ever building a nuke, but (2) even if he did have WMDs, he was not an imminent threat to us. These were, at the time, completely accurate but amazingly controversial positions.

Very, very reasonable, "serious," sensible, and ostensibly intelligent politicians - even liberals - wholly believed the opposite. These beliefs were based, we now can tell, almost entirely on a sort of rumor-mill reality that developed around assumptions carried on the backs of otherwise credible people, and accepted as plain fact. There was hardly any critical thinking - a skill we are supposed to develop in grade school - at the highest levels of power in our country.

This is quite literally how I see government run on a daily basis. I'm not just talking about when I pick up the paper or read a blog - I see it at work too. Without disclosing what I do, let me just say that the daily operations of our government are done on auto-pilot and on a raft of unchallenged assumptions and rationalized improprieties. It is, without exaggeration, a daily source of amazement to me.

Lest I create the impression that I am only talking about government, however (I do grow tired of bureaucrat-bashing), I also see enough of the private sector's stupidity to know that this trait seems to infect nearly every human endeavor.

I want to second the sentiment that we're proud of the fact that you were able to interview Senator Dodd and ask him some truly substantive questions, for a change. I hope your position at Salon enables you to get many more such interviews in the future.

I often wonder, for all the times people in power point out that bloggers don't do original reporting, why don't they at least give bloggers the access to them that often forms the basis for 90% of "news" in the first place?

What about when our customer service calls are relayed to call centers in India or the Philippines? Are we just tempting Alberto to tap us for trying to get our computers to work?

Technically, and in theory, sure, if a "significant purpose" is to obtain foreign intelligence information and the surveillance is reasonably "directed at" that person in India or the Philippines (even if it also happens to be "directed at" you). I'm not sure what the utility of tapping those calls woud be, however.

See my last few posts on the previous thread - maybe it will help shed light on some of your substantive questions about the FISA amendment?

For once a fair question.

I'd be interested in hearing why everything crossing the border can be searched without a warrant, (including the body cavities of citizens), but not telephone calls. What makes them so special?

What makes them special is their purely expressive quality, hence implication for the 1st Amendment, unlike a physicial object crossing a border.

Ondelette touched on this - another critical difference is that we search things that cross our border (or board a plane) to look for things that are inherently, physically dangerous (or illegal). Their very entrance into our country is a threat in some way. I do think this difference is essential enough to constitutionally distinguish eavesdropping from border searching regarding the 4th Amendment.

This is actually a legitimate question, and I think deserves an answer, if only to further clarify the issue.

I'd be interested in hearing why everything crossing the border can be searched without a warrant, (including the body cavities of citizens), but not telephone calls. What makes them so special?

What makes them special is their purely expressive quality, unlike a physical object crossing a border. We search things that cross our border (or board a plane) to look for things that are inherently, physically dangerous (or illegal). Their very entrance into our country is a threat in some way.

The authority to conduct border searches in spite of the 4th Amendment stems from the government's necessity to physically protect its borders and people from harmful things or people coming in. I do think this difference is essential enough to constitutionally distinguish eavesdropping from border searching regarding the 4th Amendment.

(I have the day off today and will use it to further obsess over the FISA amendment)