The pernicious spying on the Home Front is a pernicious crime that's a 'yucky' that will rot the entire 'body politic' imh o-pine opinion.

The service provided here is you actually save the federal agent stooges some energy. The real anemic/enema is so sad. This Place here is better than a government agent's decoy's who pretend to be government bureaucratic "do good-er."

I been placed on their conference telophoney calls. Thanks for making it easier to convey what we see and smell before the creeps are seen crawling under the rocks and screaming-out in RealShame. DCLaw1 is right on, thanks. We have a opinion and must use them with proper wisdom and propriety. We need not become a brand of a-holes when we critique our mismanaged country we'd love to see energetic and salvageable.

Let's know what to say, in the proper spirit, and be discreet when we need to speak. And also, know when to shush.

Do they have enough time?

One of the reasons some bosses are skeptical about flex time is that they can’t be sure their employees are doing the job. If it is a simple flex (9-6 rather than 7-3 Mon-Fri) there is a certain comfort level. How is an employer supposed to feel about 9-11:30am, 1-3:30 pm, 5-6 pm, 7-9 pm – and that’s just on Monday? The rest of the week is different yet. How am I supposed to feel about empty chambers on C-Span?

I’d like to think that they are just working so hard at all hours that I don’t have to be concerned at all. When not in the chamber, they are reading briefs on bills, writing bills, attending committee meetings, etc.

That seems wildly optimistic to me, given what we know about politicians in general. I wonder how much time is spent meeting with lobbyists.

It seems like there might be a lot going on with the Gonzales hearings, and the Iraq bill, etc. But aren’t there Congressmen/Senators who aren’t working on these things? Couldn’t they be best employed working on habeas corpus? ... warrantless wiretapping? … real energy policy? …signing statements? …media issues? …disappearing e-mails? (etc. ad nauseaum)

It seems to me there are things they need to make time for. I'd be in favor of a continuing resolution while they tackle the Executive Branch's malfeasance.

This one is out in the open.

"May 14th is the official deadline for cable modem companies, DSL providers, broadband over powerline, satellite internet companies and some universities to finish wiring up their networks with FBI-friendly surveillance gear, to comply with the FCC's expanded interpretation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act."

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/reminder_monday.html

Happy 'The technology exists to record this and everything else', day.

You seem to imply that some of the monitoring activities have slowed or ceased. I doubt it. I suspect Never Say Anything has moved the puzzle pieces to hide things. Long ago and far away I knew quite well of their powers, and they were awesome decades ago. I think it would be a terrible error to assume that they do not record EVERYTHING they can. Of course recording all that data is one thing. Looking into the data for keywords and patterns (watch for patterns) is another. At one time the analysis was heavily human. Yes the kickouts were digital even back in the 70s, but the analysis was human and very slow. Now I assume it's mostly digital. But the saving grace with Never Say Anything is that it is a gubmint bureaucracy. If it can fubared, it will be fubared. Job security, you know.

How could anyone be fed such a fat pitch and then, not only not hit it out of the ballpark, but refuse to even swing at it?

-- James Levy

For the very simple reason that if one chooses to weight openess over security, one has to admit to choosing "acceptable" numbers of deaths over doing everything possible to limit those deaths. In other words, Democrats have no plan "B", just criticisms of Plan "A".

As an aside I wonder if there is a comparison to how data-mining info by commercial interests compares in scope to the DOJ's. Somehow I doubt that kind of balance will be in evidence.

As another aside, I've heard rumblings that the Fort Dix attackers were brought over here from Bosnia with no vetting, by none other than Mrs. Bill Clinton. I'm also waiting for the first lawsuit against the Circuit City employee for invasion of privacy.

That Schiff-Flake amendment is as useless as a non-binding war resolution. What's the point of making a law that says another law can't be broken, especially when that law has been broken for years? Is that supposed to make investigations unnecessary? Is that supposed to make it all better?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Primetime/story?id=429308

What was especially notable in the ABC News story was the privatization of surveillance. Private agencies originally collected and sold information to other private companies, for marketing and for credit-checking. Then the data collection companies found new customers, at government agencies.

The surveillance-industrial complex, like the military-industrial complex, employs sophisticated sales and marketing techniques. The military-industrial complex convinces Congress(es) and Administration(s) to fund expensive weapons systems of questionable utility. The surveillance-industrial complex has the same kind of sales and marketing, to hype data collection and data analysis products and programs of questionable utility. (We're breaking eggs -- losing our civil liberties -- without gaining omelettes.)

The private contractors are able to collect information in ways that government agencies couldn't do themselves -- not legally, anyway.

The full extent of the privatization of surveillance is unknown, but it's surely far greater than what was mentioned in the ABC TV story.

Neither the cops nor the DA nor the Judge asks you about "weighing" anything when you break the law. Either the president is under the law or he is a dictator. And you also punked out on the facts--the FISA law allows for IMMEDIATE wiretaps and EX POST FACTO approval. So why did the president break that law and ignore them OTHER THAN TO SET THE PRECEDENT THAT HE WAS ABOVE THE LAW. Answer, that one, and I'll take you seriously. Of course, you won't, because you'd like to live under a right-wing dictatorship.