Since, with the TSP, Bush & Co. are already doing what this FISA amendment now allows them to legally do (and likely much much more), what was the hurry? Where was the need?

This bill does nothing at all to protect us from terrorism. And now, as citizens of this once great country, we don't even have standing in our own courts to challenge this malfeasance. This is quite possibly a death-blow to the Democratic Party, and freedom as we know it is teetering on the brink of the abyss.

Now that was funny. And surveillance here at Salon could be an excellent development--

Datamining and linking software will clearly detect a concentric linking pattern in the content of these posts, referring to a plan, a strategy, or some sort of document termed a "constitution". Analysis of that "plan, strategy or document" would reveal much about the inner workings of this discussion being held on Salon, and many similar sites on the intertubes. By becoming familiar with that document, our intelligence services might gain some very important information, vitally important to our national security.

-this would not have happened without the full participation of the Democratic leadership. They control the bills, what gets voted on, how long Congress stays in session, all of it. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were ordered by the President to stay in Washington and so they did, keeping the sessions opened and allowing this bill to be enacted.

They could have obstructed, filibustered, done all sorts of things to prevent its enactment. They did nothing. Once they knew it would pass, enough of them voted against it to enable those who want to defend them to point to their little meek votes against it as though they are not to blame. Sorry, but they just are.

-- GlennGreenwald

Points taken. So then, aside from voting out the Democrats who voted in favor, and, at the very least, excoriating the Democrats who did no more than cast a vote in opposition, without actually taking action to not permit the two mentioned travesties to become "law",...what do we do? Vote out Pelosi and Reid? That would, of course, be fine with me if it would help.

It does become increasingly more difficult to not be shattered to the point of being overwhelmed by how deeply useless, or worse, our Senators and Representatives have become.

What I don't get is that they pass this law knowing full well about the FBI abuses, DOJ abuses, and others that have occurred with the current laws. Do the Democrats not think they are going to stretch this one (as bad as it is) beyond what the law says and it become even more abusive to our privacy.

And then I read this: "The controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program took another surprise turn last week when a team of FBI agents, armed with a classified search warrant, raided the suburban Washington home of a former Justice Department lawyer. The lawyer, Thomas M. Tamm, previously worked in Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR)—the supersecret unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets. The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files. Tamm and his lawyer, Paul Kemp, declined any comment."

They took his children's laptops!!! I understand that someone may have used the laptops to disseminate information but is this not a government truly out of control with the Democrats looking the other way.

American terrorist lawsuits against telecommunication companies for conspiring to violate the law with this lawless government.

A few of us have been fighting against the excesses of the Bush/Cheney Administration for years. We tried to shake people by the shoulders and make them see how dangerous our path was. Prior to November 2006, we saw that the government was completely controlled by Republicans, and that little could be done. We generally chose to believe that changing control of Congress would put a stop to the worst excesses of an out-of-control executive branch. And we succeeded in bringing a new sheriff to town.

And then, like in some bad Hollywood thriller, the savior in whom we invested our hopes turned out to be in the pocket of the villain.

Past excesses and failures made me angry. This one leaves me despondent. It says that we are so far gone that simple fixes will not get the job done. It says that the Constitution now has no effective constituency. Resurrecting it will require a series of events that seems utterly implausible.

I heard Glenn on Democracy Now! using the word “baffled” concerning the capitulation of the Democratic Party in submission to the will of Bush. Glenn is not alone in using this word or others that convey the same meaning. The discussion of Democratic ineffectiveness usually tails off at this point of bafflement rather than leading to an examination of the commonly held assumptions that lead to and terminate the progression of logic in bafflement.

One means of becoming baffled is to see events unfold in ways logically contrary to one’s operating assumptions. A common assumption is that the Democratic Party actually wants to win and will always see its own interests furthered by winning. Another assumption is that the Democratic Party represents broader middle class interests despite being composed of upper class powerful people, whether they become members of this class before or during their terms of office.

Information is scarce, or not widely disseminated, about the motivations for the Democratic alignment with Bush. While not knowing what Democratic motivations are, new assumptions can be made that allow events to unfold as they have without being baffled.

For example, assume that the common class of the dominant factions of both the Democratic and the Republican parties are of the same dominant social and economic classes and are united in their shared class interests.

Assume that the 9 million unregistered black voters who will vote 90% Democratic, and will guarantee Democratic wins, are not wanted in the Democratic Party because they will further disrupt the parties class purity and unity, and move the party to the left, contrary to the advice of political consultants. The blacks, the left, and those opposed to illegal wars and violations of domestic and international law make up an undesired electorate and undesired constituents of an enlarged and winning Democratic Party.

Assume that the polity not in agreement with the Democratic Party has no where to go and are effectively owned by that party due to a greater disagreement with the Republican Party. Assume that no concessions need to be made to these “misfits” to capture their votes and they can be effectively ignored.

Assume that the Democratic Party will work to disenfranchise any third party that these undesirables may form or join with far more vigor than they will bring to the containment of the Republican party monarchical aspirations.

Banish bafflement by recognizing the changes in the Democratic Party and updating operating assumptions on how they will behave. Don’t be surprised. I’m not.