I think instead of warm wool socks,

the darn GOPS wear dirty flip-flops?

Doesn't that mean "good to go"?

The previous comment section shooter said what's the big deal if the gov't does what a private company does? I and others responded that gov't has more power, can put people in jail, will use it to target others etc etc. Shooter and that coward anonymis know, or have been told, about the history of abuses committed by our gov't.

Actually, the telecom privacy laws restrict what even the telecoms can do internally with user call information. If they reveal without authorisation or misuse subscriber information, not just to the gummint, but at all, they can be liable.

Cheers,

Another four years of Republican rule will give the Democrats a chance to re-define themselves and become a true opposition party. By contrast, if they win the presidency, this will be the end of the U.S. as a lawful democracy

Right, because the previous 27 years of conservative dominance have been so effective in pushing the Democratic party back to its progressive roots and giving it a spine, and it was a Democratic president who killed US democracy, not a Publican one. Got any more words of wisdom, or will you be the first to jump off that cliff, to lead by example?

I don't know if it's intentional, but this is the very definition of concern trollism.

Cheers.

The fbi has need to request larger black bag dossiers for paper files.

Also: An autistic nsa spy is making sure her 19-peas don't touch each other in the i-pod.

There is a compartmentalized dossier for Wise winebibbers who will not whine?

Glenn, will you please send me to bed without pea-soup and

chocolate eclairs?

Am I too annoying?

I irritate myself!

I'm a cranky basset mutt.

If I ever get the chance,

may I show you my war scars?

Cheers. I don't want to annoy you.

The local dogs sniff my sore wounds.

Not to toot my own horn, but in several previous posts on the FISA issue I have advocated that people stop paying their bills to the telecoms as a form of civil disobedience. Make them expend millions of dollars trying to collect these amounts (talk about a burden of litigation). Then, when they sue and try to collect the unpaid amounts, each individual court assert the FISA violations as an affirmative defense (e.g., "Upon information and belief, AT&T monitored my telephone (or cell phone or internet usage) and passed that information along to the Federal government without a warrant, in violation of U.S. law).

The SIC bill contains retroactive immunity for the telecoms, meaning that they would not be liable in many of the lawsuits currently brought against them. However, if my reading of the bill is correct, the SIC bill would not prevent an individual from using the FISA violations to preclude the telecoms from collecting unpaid bills.

...Joe Klein has just penned a masterly analysis of the FISA bill and its consequences:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/on_fisa_reform.html#comments

Money quote:

"...how big a deal is immunity, really? In effect, it is a grandfather clause: it essentially says that telecoms should not be punished for acts that were illegal in the past but now become legal in the FISA reform bill..."

...my 2008 nominee for the This Is, In Effect, Exactly The Opposite Of What I Say It Is Award.

"Listening to this "debate" is enough to make one become a revolutionary."

It hardly took this debate to get you there - reading your article, it is not hard to decipher the fact that you would gladly revolt against this government. What strikes me as more disturbing is the apparent desire to give in to those who would wish us harm to assuage some ridiculous guilt that you feel.

Let's see - you refer to Senator Rockefeller as AT&T's personal senator - much like you are the ACLU, trial lawyers and the quick to sue personally aggrieved individuals everywhere personal correspondent. AT&T is better company than your cohorts.

You spend a ridiculous amount of space railing against Rockefeller and others with his view - without detailing what it is that the telecoms apparently did - and why their cooperation with FISA is so harmful to the nation. You barely mention it, with the few exceptions of the oft-repeated canard that any cooperation with a government agency is tantamount to despotism.

Your update (number 2, I believe) that accuses Rockefeller of contradictory statements is idiotic. "On the one hand, he claims that telecoms did nothing wrong because they were "compelled" by the President's orders to cooperate in his warrantless surveillance programs and had no choice. On the other hand, he claims that without retroactive immunity, telecoms won't cooperate in the future." Spoken like a true lawyer - yes it makes sense - if you are being sued, or even threatened of being sued, it is immaterial whether the action for which you are being sued is wrong - you are highly unlikely to repeat the action even if you are in the right.

I am tired of people like yourself who would much rather mire our agencies in legalese and hearings than tracking down those who threaten the nation. It amazes me how people like yourself - who undoubtedly argue for more government intervention for social programs and the like, are in turn so opposed to the same government trying to protect its citizens by monitoring illegal activities.

This issue is a no brainer - not only are the majority of cases involving activities and telecommunications OUTSIDE the country where rights are not and SHOULD NOT be extended, but the information being requested is much less than what is given to marketing companies in daily data mining. When are people such as yourself going to stop treating our security as some kind of gotcha game, remove the politics and instead allow our children to grow up without fear of terrorists having more rights than you would grant the average conservative? (It's always about the children!)