DARPA is a government agency, not a business.

But even Hiatt sees the Democrats' weekend capitulation on FISA for exactly what it is, and expresses it clearly in a remarkably good Editorial this morning -- entitled "Warrantless Surrender":

You are letting your anger about this bill allow you to cloud your judgment here. And this bill is an atrocity.

This FISA bill passed because the rubber stamp Republicans and a small number of Blue Dog Dems gave Bush the votes he needed on this. The Dem leadership was stuck with getting only a 6 month sunset provision.

The only other alternative was a filibuster in the Senate, but note that the bill passed with 60 votes.

So before fluffing Hiatt simply because your anger and his poison pen happen to coincide today, step back a minute and think about what would have been the better editorial -- perhaps something with this headline:

Rubber-Stamp Republicans and Small Minority of Turncoat Dems Continue to Support Atrocious Policies of Unpopular President

Instead, this Hiatt editorial is another in a long series of blaming Democrats for atrocious Republican policies. That is the more important theme here, and one you have written about many times.

A remarkably good editorial would have talked first about how poisonous the Republicans are, and secondly how a minority of Democrats are preventing the Dem leadership from fighting back -- not one which places blame first on Dem leadership.

"Why the Democrats are so soft on national security and hate America so much"

If by soft on national security, you mean unwilling to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and if by hate America, you mean seek to destroy the foundations on which our country was built for 30 pieces of silver and a weekend off, then it isn't Joe Klein who should be asking that question, it is We the People.

On July 29, I wrote here:

Anyone want to give odds that any such new [FISA] legislation will have an indemnity clause for past law breaking inserted somewhere between the final bill and the printer?

Little did I know that the Dems would make such subterfuge unnecessary.

While there is no expressed immunity from prosecution for past felonies, as Glenn pointed out on Amy Goodman's program today, the fact that even worse violations have now been given a bi-partisan stamp of approval, the likelihood that anyone, including the telcos, of being prosecuted for past acts is slight.

Really?

I'm still travelling, with a lot of obligations, so I still haven't had time to really dig into these statutory issues with the new bill, but from what I understand, Russ Feingold has seen the FISA decision, and does recognize that there is this "gap" -- whether in fact or arguably -- and that there was a fix needed. Without seeing the FISA decision, all we can do is rely upon others who have as to what it says, and Feingold is -- on this issue -- one of the few trustworthy voices.

I fully understand how busy you are right now, which is why I put the query out to anyone who could answer (though I'm always happy when you weigh in).

The Feingold card is a very powerful card, indeed, and invocation of just about any name other than his wouldn't give my doubts the slightest pause. Still, when I read the statute itself, I have to think that the FISA decision must have focused more narrowly on foreign-to-foreign communications in which persons in the US were also involved. Otherwise, I would seriously question the correctness of the ruling, and would expect the proper response should have been to appeal that ruling rather than take a wrench to FISA.

At any rate, we seem to be in solid agreement that, whatever the FISA Court ruling, the current changes go far, far beyond any supposed "gap" concerning foreign-to-foreign communications.

it hurts when i laff.

None of the Democratic presidential candidates advocate a neocon foreign policy. We will not realistically see a fundamental change in direction until a new President is in place (1/09) and at this point it is my fervent hope that it is anyone but a Republican (since I assume that Ron Paul is unelectable, but what do I know). Karl Rove's strategy was to organize on a micro-grassroots level, and many of the hard-fought and hardwon seats that Democrats won in the 2006 races are being held onto by razor thin margins. Physioprof speculated on yesterday's thread that Democratic party leadership calculated who should vote which way, depending on the strength/vulnerability of the congressional seat. I agree with that. We need a Democratic president, and we also need to retain Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. No, it's not like Clark Kent/Superman. It's more like building a strong resistance force and hanging in there until the time is right and Democrats are truly in power.

Giving the neocons plenty of rope to hang themselves with seems like a prudent Democrat strategy to me.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/08/20070803FISA.htm

Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the FISA Legislation Debated by the Senate
August 3, 2007

“I am going to vote for the Rockefeller-Levin bill. I’m concerned that we’re moving too fast and that we have not necessarily come up with the right answer to the problem that we all recognize exists. But I am prepared to vote for this because I think it is, at least, a reasonable approach to addressing legitimate problems without unduly compromising the civil liberties of Americans. I do so, I must say, with great reluctance and with the expectation this is an experiment with a short expiration date, an experiment that we can assess and modify as we move forward.

“But we cannot pass the Bond-McConnell proposal. This bill [the one that was subsequently enacted] would go way too far [...] beyond the identified problem of foreign to foreign communications that we all agree on. And it goes far, far beyond the public descriptions of the president's warrantless wiretapping program.

“What little judicial review the bill does provide is essentially meaningless. [...] Let me point out that the so-called court review in the Bond bill will never happen because the court only has to rule within 180 days of enactment and there is now a sunset on the bill after 180 days.