I see that Kos has picked up your story, Glenn. This will increase the issue's saliency and (hopefully) the level of public response.

(Here's one of my disclaimers! I'm home sick today.)

Johnsonjohnson, are you a farmer? Because that's a hell of a lot of straw.

Winning new hearts and minds every day, aren't we, Tiberius?

I just think, regardless of what I think has been his sloth in following some of the legislative and political details, there is likely some genuine threat of Democrats agreeing to retroactive liability based on what he wrote. I think his reporting is at least trustworthy enough to conclude that.

I'd just like to emphasize that, regardless of what is the likelihood of Democrats yielding on retroactive liability, the leak by Congressional aides at the very least makes feedback from the public very important right now.

And I agree that some Democrats are likely at least considering capitulation, and this alone is enough cause for substantial alarm and outrage.

Bill H:

To wit: do you honestly think that if a Democrat is elected President he/she will immediately give up said powers that have been collected by this administration?

This obviously doesn't prove what any Democratic president might do, but the original FISA was adamantly supported and signed by President Carter (and strongly supported by members of both political parties at the time).

I think it also depends on which Democrat gets elected. I feel pretty confident that Obama would dramatically curtail Executive Branch abuse of power. Hillary Clinton I'm not as sure about, although I point out that her husband did not run roughshod over FISA. At the very least, it's far from inevitable that a Democratic president would be as power-hungry as Bush-Cheney.

I suppose, however, that I agree in principle that presidential power tends to aggrandize itself over time, notwithstanding temporary periods of limitation by the other branches.

JBinMO:

On August 1, 2007, I [Senator McCaskill] was faced with a stark reality: the Director of National Intelligence sent a letter warning the Senate of the heightened threat of international terrorism, and urging us to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) before the August recess “to ensure that we do not have critical gaps in our ability to provide warnings of threats to the country”. The call to quickly revise FISA in order to reflect developments in telecommunications technology was echoed by four Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I chose to heed these urgent warnings.

Translation: "Despite this administration's blatant politicization of literally every level and aspect of government, I accepted every 'urgent warning' I was given, just before fall recess, when such a warning would have the highest likelihood of coercing legislative action. My behavior was completely craven, but I assure you I will magically grow a spine sometime in the future."

Thanks - it was good to sleep in a bit today and take it easy. The return of moderately cold weather has gotten everyone sick this week.

Thank you, Glenn, for the update. It saddens me to see from these confirming sources that it's true that Democrats are seriously considering passing such legislation.

What is perhaps most disgusting about this development is that it completely lacks any sort of groundswell or "mandate" from the public. It is entirely insider-driven and soaked from top to bottom with money and influence. It is the epitome of the powerful and wealthy helping themselves unilaterally to the privileges of government power, at the great expense of any semblance of accountability and deterring encroachments on the Constitution and the rule of law.

And this would be the real tragedy if such retroactive immunity were passed. Gone would be any incentive for citizens and corporations to stand up to government abuses of power that do not harm them directly. Gone would be the willingness of government employees to protest the lawlessness in which they have been asked to participate. With the FISA precedent firmly set, all players asked to lend a hand in lawbreaking would take the easy path of acquiescence, confident that their cravenness would be rewarded with continued job security and - hocus pocus! - retroactive immunity.

They would know whole sorry affair would be papered over - "papered" in the sense of both a hurried flurry of legislation and that wonderful green goodness.

Conservative Slayer:

Losing our rights is not funny. Yet by making jokes of it, I think they do more harm then good.

and Jim:

I have been a fan for the last year; my wife and I end our day chuckling at Stewart and Colbert. But the feeling has been nagging at me of late: why am I laughing at this stuff? To keep from crying? Maybe this isn't good. Maybe I should be crying.

I have to disagree. Laughter is one of the most powerful ways of winning someone over, and if you have any doubt about the ultimate effect of these satirical shows, just look at who dislikes them most. Also, letting one's self get to the point of simply lamenting our problems is a form of surrender.

Quite the contrary to laughter making injustice more palatable, it merely exposes the inanity of the reality we live in. It rips away the veneer of "seriousness" surrounding the incredible distortions and abuses we are sold with somber intonations and blank facial expressions. It exposes the farce of American politics and establishment society.

Laughing at these things is one of the most satisfying releases I look forward to every night at 11, and every Friday at 11. Effectively mocking and ridiculing a target eviscerates it so much more thoroughly than any serious critique (although serious criticisms are, of course, also important).

You don't agree with my premise because satirists couldn't stop Hitler, and because you hypothesize that some people might take ridicule of injustice as a reason not to care about it?