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.

No. You are completely downplaying the ability of Congressional majority leaders to control the agenda and to weild all sorts of weapons to prevent these sorts of things happening. It was Reid and Pelosi who decided to keep Congress in session because George Bush ordered them to. They allowed the bill to come up for a virtually immediate vote. They did everything possible to ensure that this happened and nothing to stop it.

I'm amazed at those who are so eager to exonerate the Democratic leadership here. The Republicans have spent all year IN THE MINORITY blocking the Democrats from doing much of anything. Yet the Democrats are IN THE MAJORITY and control Congress and yet when Congress does something like this, there are no shortage of people who want to claim that the poor Democrats had no choice and had no ability to prevent this from happening.

nuance

In 2004 and 2005 all of these extremist measures were the byproduct of secret programs that were created by the Bush administration and implemented in a lawless manner. Congress did not authorize them. That is no longer the case. If you look at, for example, the war crimes that the Bush administration committed, and the lawless detention that they imposed on thousands of people, and the enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e., torture) -- That now has legal authorization of the American people through our Congress. -- GG

Our Congress has just passed laws to legalize crimes against humanity. We are now, as a nation and as a government, in willful violation of every international treaty prohibiting war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

It doesn't get much worse than that.

This is probably the best explanation of the secret FISA Court decision that ostensibly pronounced the alleged "gap" for tapping foreign-to-foreign communications:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/more-known-unkn.html

"Basket warrants" for all communications involving one person in a foreign country, without knowing where the other party or parties to the communication are located. The grounds for requiring a warrant, apparently according to one FISA Court judge, being that there is at least the possibility that a person in the US could be subject to the intercept.

So it is still misleading for all these politicians to have claimed this was all about a "gap" in the ability to eavesdrop on conversations occurring solely between or among people in foreign countries. After all, this casts the debate in far more favorable terms than saying it's unacceptable to need a court order to tap communications between a person abroad and someone that could possibly be in the US (and could possibly be a US citizen).

It also comes down, again, to blanket surveillance - "General Warrants," if you will, which the Founders expressly opposed due to their abuses in the hands of the unaccountable Crown. This new statutory legitimization of blanket surveillance of multiple communications will probably set up a Supreme Court case on the 4th Amendment. Is the Bush administration counting on its new conservative majority on the Court to bless its activities and cut yet another swath from our privacy rights?

"Yet the Democrats are IN THE MAJORITY and control Congress and yet when Congress does something like this, there are no shortage of people who want to claim that the poor Democrats had no choice and had no ability to prevent this from happening."

1. and what is having a majority for if not advancing that party's agenda in the most forceful way allowable (like the Republicans do)? How can the results be the sme regardless of who'e in the majority?

2. If not now WHEN? Are they waiting for Bush and the war to get more unpopular? Is the ONLY time the Dems can push their agenda - OUR agenda - when they have the executve AND legislative? Or do we have to wait for a few Dem presidents to get a solid majority for the SCOTUS, too : THEN we'll fix things! We promise!

3. The ONLY thing that's going to get them to behave differently is what we're doing right here in microcosm. We have to make them realize just how unacceptable their behavior is.

If the Democrats suck so bad, where are you going to go? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Democrats had little to gain and a lot to lose by going against the administration on these particular votes. While they currently have the edge in the presidential horserace at the moment, why do a lot of grandstanding now and hand the Republicans raw-meat ammo? Unh-unh.

I can't comment on GG's suggestion - frankly, it's over my head as a lay person. And I will surmise, if I don't get it - would the average American voter? For Democrats, would it play in Peoria? I kinda doubt it. But I'll do my homework and try to understand it better.

No president can ever take hypothetical military action off the table. Using the military is not just a neocon policy. What Democrats *add* is the politics of hope, not fear. That is, increased/enhanced use of diplomacy, negotiating, etc. Not just the neocon - use brute force, and if brute force doesn't work then use more brute force.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that one of the Democratic presidential candidates will win in November '08. But I don't think it's inevitable. All it would take is one domestic terrorist attack and all bets are off as to who would be elected president in '08.

The Democratic base is energized. I don't want to see Democrats do anything to energize the *Republican* base.

Readers who are interested can check the voting records (& also get a Progressive Score) of any Congressperson via ProgressivePunch.com.

Below is the introduction on their front page:

"ProgressivePunch is a non-partisan searchable database of Congressional voting records from a Progressive perspective. But we're convinced it's extremely useful irrespective of anyone's political positions.

We show the performance of members within 160 different issue categories, and detailed vote descriptions, thereby empowering you to zero in on what matters to you."

I've found it to be a useful tool.