Should the police sandbag the windows at the station house, or are you just in town to catch The Brave One? -- William Timberman

Lol. You're a hoot Timberman. Don't get your panties in a bunch. I just get a kick out of seeing the faux earnestness. Oh and don't worry, anyone who regularly reads and comments in UT's comments section knows it's all talk. No one actually expects you to do anything (me included at this point). You are safe here in your "safe house."

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Protect America Act of 2007 (S. 1927). I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.

On August 1, 2007, I 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.

I voted for two measures to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I preferred the legislation offered by Senators Rockefeller and Levin; however, it failed to gather the 60 votes needed to pass. I also voted for the Bond-McConnell version, which did receive enough votes to pass. Corresponding legislation was later approved by the House of Representatives, and the President quickly signed the bill into law.

It is important to recognize that this legislation is a temporary fix to provide our intelligence community with the most immediate tools needed to protect our country – it will be in place for only six months, and it cannot be renewed before it is thoroughly reviewed and authorized by Congress. This gives us six months to create a more acceptable permanent intelligence collection process that that allows us to effectively monitor terrorist communications overseas while also protecting the privacy of law-abiding American citizens. I can assure you I will be one of the Senators working hard to re-establish the constitutional protections that have been eroded by this President and this temporary FISA legislation.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

All best,

Senator Claire McCaskill

but if these democrats cant stand up to this president at this point in time, could they actually stand up to Bin Laden? This is discusting.

RE: Warrantless Wiretapping

If the executive branch could have exercised this power back in the 90s, just think how much faster we could have caught a "real" bad-guy, like the Unabomber? Oh, wait. He lived in a wooden shack in the middle of nowhere without electricity. Nevermind.

-- orbitboy

even if you were half-joking. They want a short-cut, a magic weapon, or a programmer's cheat (gaming version) to keep from having to do that homework I fussed about earlier today. They don't want to have to do real police work, which is what it will always take. They want a technological magic wand. The magic wand salesman will be happy to tell them it will solve all problems, while taking a great deal of money, but it is all bullshit if you don't want to do any real work.

It is like sysprog shows us every damn day. If you are willing to dig, really work, you will get somewhere in your research, but Commander Codpiece is lazy. This was shown very clearly pre-911 (PDB 8/6/01), again with mission unaccomplished, again with Katrina, and now with the escalation. He just wants to go to damn Crawford, or that Houston freedom institute (how funny is that for a fascist to run?) and collect speaking fees.

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).

And what about Republicans? Will they suddenly change their minds on giving such powers to a Democratic president?

Couldn’t we see a dramatic shift in their position if they lose the White House? Not long ago, they were claiming that the “filibuster” was “unconstitutional” but now that they’re in the minority, they’ve used it more than it’s ever been used before.

Won’t they suddenly be really suspicious of “executive” powers once they no longer “own” those powers? Might we see a little role reversal?

Without any evidence, I don't agree.

It's an ironic travesty: I think there's very little downside to supporting the Constitution at this point, even among Repugs:

- Rove is gone, the President is weak

- Americans don't typically frown upon standing up for principles

- rallying around the Constitution is strong and easy-to-play

Why not then? Fealty towards Bush is perhaps a hard habit to break. W/r/t habeus corpus for instance, I'd bet Repug Senators rec'd very few calls (if any) from constituents urging them to support the continued denial of habeas corpus.

If the executive branch could have exercised this power back in the 90s, just think how much faster we could have caught a "real" bad-guy, like the Unabomber? Oh, wait. He lived in a wooden shack in the middle of nowhere without electricity. Nevermind.

I don't think from here on out ANY President, Republican or Democrat, will be giving up the warrentless eavesdropping anytime soon and here's why: In my honest opinion (and I think polls have proven this out)I believe the majority of Americans see a trade off between warrentless wiretaps and their perceived safety.

So what President in his/her right mind would do away with something that increases their power AND the majority of people perceives as something that keeps them safer?

I just don't think it would happen.

strip Joe Leiberman of his committee assignments and seniority?

If he wants to caucus with the Republicans, let him.