What, if any, implications are there regarding warrant-less surveillance that took place before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

Will members of the Combat Veterans Motorcycle Association do? All the ones I know are guys, I'm afraid.

I think it's better that both of my Senators and my rep are repugs and live down to my double-basement expectations of them. I'd go insane with bush-dog dems in their place.

But how I envy Louisvillians, and their wonderful, fabulous, proud-and-loud liberal rep John Yarmuth.

I'm calling his office to order some of the buttons he had made up and passed out last week, that say, simply:

Article 1

Apparently more than a few of his "colleagues" didn't know what it meant.

If this "law" makes it through the system and is installed, who then can argue that our system is not a system of fascism?

Leave out the racism and "dictator" definitions of fascism and what we have here in the grand ole USofA is fascism. Look it up. Go to any dictionary. Leave out the racism sections of the definition. Tell me that America is not a fascist state. No, there is not a "dictator". But, do you really believe that? How many times have you thought of George and Dick as dictators? Isn't this exactly what Glenn is indicating by bringing up lectures on thrid world democratic revolution?

Essentially, fascism is big business and government walking down the aisle and getting married. It's been in operation here for a long time. It has just been expertly hidden by the ruling class.

-Derek Java

Now, it isn't so much hidden as it is not talked about, especially by our media, mainstream anyway.

Today the New York papers report that Barack Obama raised $1 million in a single day when he sent an appeal out over the Net. Not to single out Obama, but it would seem that in spite of approval ratings in the teens and collective left-wing dismay over Democratic capitulation to the Bush regime, the money for our incumbent Democratic presidential candidates keeps rolling in. Why? How have these candidates come to deserve this largesse when they have done absolutely nothing remarkable to stop the onrushing tide of the corporatocracy?

I suggest to you that it might be a good idea to cut the Democrats off--as in no more bucks for the DCCC, DLC, Chuck Schumer, Rahm, Nancy, "Give-'em-hell-Harry" Reid, Hillary, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Barack and any other Congressional incumbent who is out there soliciting. Unless and until they start behaving like they have read the Constitution and intend to uphold it, that is.

Now, I know that the Dems have uncovered new, vast treasure troves from the corporate coffers--that's the point of this article after all. And today they also tell us that Hillary has so far raised more from Wall Street than all the Republican candidates combined. However, these candidates cannot survive solely on corporate donations, so the time is right for we non-corporate funders to shake these people up or discard them completely.

..said they were getting "a ton" of calls on this issue, sounded quite happy about it. They also suggested people call Harry Reid's office -- when I asked for the # the young feller said he didn't have it on hand but he'd go look it up so he could give it out to the next caller.

I called Harry Reid's office (202-224-3542). Had to wait on hold for a bit -- hope that's a good sign, but the staffer there didn't seem very interested in my call.

Neither am I counting on the bill being innocuous, Jeanette; but I would like to see the actual text of the bill, and I would like some better understanding of what constitutes demonstrating that a wire-tapping directive was legal before proceeding to sweeping generalization and condemnations. Call me interested, suspicious, and engaged, but not yet convinced.

Without being able to see the actual text of the bill, I'm not sure that you are correct, Glenn.

Yes - you're quoting the term "legal directive" from the Washington Post article as though it's the legal standard in the bill. Here's the lead paragraph from Eric Lichtblau's article in the NYT, who has seen the bill:

Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee reached a tentative agreement on Wednesday with the Bush administration that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a Congressional official said Wednesday.

And:

Senators this week began reviewing classified documents related to the participation of the telephone carriers in the security agency program and came away from that early review convinced that the companies had “acted in good faith” in cooperating with what they believed was a legal and presidentially authorized program and that they should not be punished through civil litigation for their roles, the official said.

They're writing this bill to achieve the objective of having these suits dismissed, and the lawyers they are working with are writing language to ensure that telecoms can meet those standards.

I find it somewhat doubtful that legislators who have basically been bought by the large telecom companies would allow a bill with such a large loophole in it. I am hopeful that your analysis is correct, but I'm not counting on it.

Male answered. Very friendly, very supportive, happy to get the call, and they're happy to take more of them (hint, hint)...

Says Dodd is looking at "every legislative avenue" and they're "all over it" [the issue].

The UK, France and Germany now, vis a vis domestic spying. Uh ok.

Mikulski? No forget to huff, puff, sigh, and breath.

She's my senator who is supposed to 'represent' scooby dogs too. No such Lady Luck!

I hand-carried a packet.

Maybe "representatives" read?

If people don't respond. Love scooby-Marylander-lovers. I don't know what else to do?

Anybody know a Harley gal?

My ribs itch and need scratched.

I honestly got to go- I shad up!

My respect to my neighbor, Scoobie.