Thanks for that clarification. Is there any word on whether any other Senator would stand ready to take the floor for an extended time once Dodd can go on no more? From my reading of earlier filibusters, especially in the civil rights era, multiple Senators must have been involved when filibusters went on for many days.

Okay. Off I go now to the back porch. I wish I could shake the 'ting' and take a bath. Theo ride an elevator up 13 floors?

That's almost to a Moon!

Okay. Off I go onto the wild night wind. It's so windy It's a sounding like a coo-choo train here. I've got a bowl Ode white baby cauliflowers and greens doused with some Vinaigre aux bleuts sauvage. yum.

It was a "bad" wine?

But it's great salad sativa.

Let's go another hypothetical, then: what will you do when the "limits" of this future "legislation" are inevitably also transgressed

Fair question. Consider the idea of jury nullification. The only reason this is a controversy is that immunity is being strongly considered by Congress in response to a request by the President. If that weren't happening AT&T would be in the dock already. Beyond that is a tacit acceptance by the American public (the jury) of the idea that they did what was asked in a difficult time. Polling?

If the country were really outraged about the issue, as it may be in the future, things will be handled much differently.

This is very fuzzy on my part, but I think it is true that, once a senator has the floor, whether or not he intends a filibuster, he can hold until another senator requests that he yield.

"Will the senator yield ... ?"

A senator holding the floor can't be ordered to give it up by the chair, as can happen in the House.

Without the possibility of a filibuster in the air, there would be no assumption that a senator holding the floor may speak indefinitely.

You wouldn't want to be labeled a "blame America first" type, would you, citizen?

Is that they have the blundering bad luck to assume no one would care that they got caught. But as far as being materially different in its intent or scope in spying on us I doubt it's far removed from any other administration. The 'x' factor today is not who or where or why or how much - it's the level of technical sophistication available to them and to all who come after, to do this sort of thing. Back in the bad old days of J. Edgar - they relied on human assets and crude phone taps for the most part. And their records were paper. They were limited only in their technical ability. Similarly in East Germany, upwards of one third of the populace spied on the other 2/3rds for the Staasi. Big inefficient manpower problem. We're just a lot more cost and labor efficient than that. I'm sure that this experience has been very telling for anyone who's in the business and they'll work to avoid detection all that much more.

Thegris wrote:

"I am just so furious that Democrats are such willing partners in the Bush regime's worst crimes (torture, Iraq war, surveillance) that I can no longer call myself a Democrat. These collaborators disgust me, and I am looking for alternatives.

What if progressives supported Ron Paul?"

Just as the Neo-Con(federate)s were never truly conservative, they were never really Republicans either. They hijacked the Republican Party long enough to grab the keys to the White House, then set up a parallel Corporate Security State. Due to their own haste, ineptitude, arrogance, and/or laziness, they trampled on some inconvenient laws and Constitional prohibitions in the process, resulting in political and legal blowback.

Since it's Congress' duty to keep the Executive on a short leash, the Neo-Cons next move was to hijack the Democratic Party as well. They probably foresaw the necessity of neutralizing the ostensible opposition as a prerequisite for seizing Executive power in the first place, not to mention the practical purpose of immunizing themselves against prosecution and impeachment.

Once the Republican Party hemorrhages in the 2008 elections, the Neo-Con bacteriophages will most likely desert the carcass and make themselves at home in the already systemically infected Democratic Party. They probably expect the Fundamentalists to devour what's left of Republicanism and turn it into a marginalized Theocratic cult, content to have some raw meat tossed its way from time to time.

There will, however, be a window of opportunity for an upstart like Ron Paul to seize the reigns of the Republican Party. If rank Republicans start to panic as they watch the Neo-Cons bail-out while their own re-election prospects crumble, they may resort to desperate attempts to revitalize their Party. Compared to the rest of their oozing sores, Paul represents an antiseptically clean slate, a quixotic alternative to the corporacratic Bush/Clinton dynasties.

As many have observed, the Democratic Party is fatally corrupt, compromised, and complicit in the Neo-Con criminal enterprise. It's unlikely that Progressives can wrestle its soul back from the vulture capitalists, as after all, we have nothing but tough love to offer. Unless you want to indulge in yet another fit of Third Party futility, the upcoming collapse of the Republican Party appears to offer the best prospects for a rearguard counter-attack.

do you feel your position on immunity is consistent the concept of ‘the rule of law?’

Are you saying that breaking the law is consistent with the idea of ‘the rule of law’ provided that the legislative body amends the laws to retroactively sanction the illegal activity?

I tried that one already (months ago). It doesn't work. You're wasting your time because shooter242 does not understand the underlying concept.

He believes that "law" is a retroactive property of observation, and not an intrinsic property -- In other words, he will argue that no action can be deemed "illegal" until a court says so -- and yet he simultaneously believes that the behavior of the court system is a manifestation of political expediency. When confronted by the contradiction (as he was a few times while arguing with me in September and October) he will readily agree that he is hopping from one mutually exclusive premise to another and point out that this is simply the way political arguments work (e.g. one takes whatever position gives advantage in any particular instance).

I stress that this is not some "hidden secret" of how shooter242 thinks: it is an openly embraced belief. I am absolutely sure that his response to this post (if there is one) will be to argue that I do not understand his position and/or that I am putting words in his mouth (because he did not "say this" directly, even though my description fits his behavior today and every other day perfectly). Dismissing this characterization as inaccurate is part and parcel of his modus operandi (and of all neocons in general). Expect no clarity on the point, only deepening confusion and frustration. He wants to muddy the waters; that's what he believes political debate is all about and how it is won.