He's frantic today.

That this surveillance has been going on for decades but before, because the infomation was transmited by microwave, no telecom permission was required. Now, due to the introduction of fiber optics, telecom cooperation is now required. So the question becomes has this activity of surveillance been going on long before the Bush administration?

Ralph, you raise an interesting point but I don't know how factual it is. It is true that anything you can grab out of the "air" requires no warrant as a wiretap would but it still is fruit from the poisonous tree in any legal proceeding, I would think, unless they change the definiton of "public domain". Your garbage is public domain.

Email I received. BTW, is ther ANY chance of flipping Haryy f*ck!ng Reid, so he moves the SJC FISA bill as the "base" bill?

FISA Call to Action

The Senate will soon consider legislation addressing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I emailed you about this issue recently responding to inaccuracies in the press about Democratic efforts to improve protection of civil liberties. I am writing you today to update you on the current state of the bill and to ask for your help.

One critical question being considered in the Senate's FISA bill is whether to offer telecom companies retroactive immunity for any actions they undertook in the wireless surveillance program. The Bush Administration has claimed that this is necessary for national security reasons, but I am skeptical.

If the Administration was serious about arguing for this immunity, I suspect they would take steps to demonstrate to Congress the extent of this surveillance program and what role the phone companies played. Yet they have refused to share even this information with the House. Clearly, it is a bit much to ask for immunity from prosecution without explaining why it is necessary.

Because of these reservations, the House-passed FISA bill did not include the immunity the president sought. In the Senate, however, it is becoming clear that a tough battle will now ensue over this provision. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut has been a vocal opponent of telecom immunity and has promised to filibuster any FISA legislation that includes this provision.

Senator Dodd needs your help right now. Please visit his site and lend your support to the filibuster now. Your help can make a difference at this important juncture.

Thank you again for your continued support for a better democracy.

Your Friend,

John Conyers, Jr.

Shazaam!

Shooter asks a good question. Why don't people encrypt? It'd be a pain for phone calls, but encrypting email is easy. Nobody does it. Or, rather so few people do it, that if you did, you'd be immediately targeted by the NSA as a bad guy, subject to traffic analysis and other stuff.

But if everybody did, they couldn't intercept mail. Of course the reason it would be a pain for phone calls, at least initially, is that there's no demand. Technologically, there's no barrier--and VOIP makes it easier.

You state, "No one did Empire as well as the British. They quit because it was bankrupting them. Period."

Having spent several years living in India in the seventies and eighties, and having spoken to many Indians about the colonial experience, I would have to say, to a person, they would completely disagree with your statement that, "no one did empire as well as the British." They could all repeat countless examples of violent atrocities committed by their "benevolent" colonial rulers; they saw the claptrap of "white man's burden" for what it was, an excuse for wholesale theft of their national resources. They expressed outrage at the pillaging of their country and attempted annihilation of their centuries-old culture in the name of Christianity and presumed western superiority.

In the west, it is now fashionable, especially among the neocons, to speak approvingly of the supposed greatness of the British empire. This is revisionist history at its worse, and is an insult to indigenous peoples everywhere, who fought courageously to throw off their colonial masters. Johnson makes the argument that the British people rejected empire because of the ongoing efforts of people like Gandhi and others to throw off the yoke of tyranny. These efforts were covered, to a greater or lesser extent, by the British media. Johnson argues that the British finally came to realize the fundamental immorality of their imperial conquest and illegitimate occupation of foreign countries.

Doubtless it is more complicated than this, as you point out. But, Johnson's larger point remains: all empire is fundamentally undemocratic and no society that hopes to retain democracy can pursue empire. They are at root antithetical.

Democracy and empire cannot co-exist. What Glenn describes today is the ongoing, relentless destruction of the former side of this equation: democracy. We now have one in name only. When Presidents can break the law at will, corporations write the laws and are immune from prosecution when they break them, the judicial process is thoroughly politicized, torture is lauded, imprisonment without charges is no big deal, police brutality is commonplace, capital punishment is routine, rampant gun violence decimates our cities and kills our children, young people commit senseless serial killings and hate crimes increase, all the while highly-rated media pundits warn of the dangers of unfettered free speech and use eliminationist rhetoric, it's apparent our society is not only sick, it's on life support.

Too much coffee this morning? This is just way over the top, it's self-reinforcing hysteria. Has it occurred to you that you're being fearmongered, and now you're doing it in turn? You're describing Zimbabwe, it's not appropriate. Be concerned, but this is just panic.

"What's the harm?" you ask.

The problem is that nobody outside the Bush regime -- including the Congress -- has any idea of the scope of the domestic surveillance.

Nor, apparently, does Congress even want to know.

Is it really so hard to imagine that these powers, unchecked by judicial or congressional oversight, will be abused?

Even more crucial, considering the sleazy actions of the Bush regime that have been exposed to date, isn't it highly probable to the point of certitude that these powers are being abused?