...and most of you have already covered the important FISA issues.

I did send one heartfelt email to Edwards, even though I received three from Glenn and Jane. They really worked their email lists.

[Psst, WT & bystander, re: Jebbie's pony. Let's ask everyone to bring one for him to Netroots Nation. Ssssh, though, because it should be a surprise!]

...only Green & Black's.

The Maya Gold...

http://www.greenandblacksdirect.com/pages/homepage/side_links/view_full_range/bar_combination_gifts1/default.aspx

I was not buying or agreeing with Reid's twisted logic, but merely repeating it, which Glenn and others have as well. Don't shoot the messenger--or even point a gun his way--please.

Save your ammo for the real enemies here.

I didn't mean literally here, as in this blog, but in the general sense of the situation that have right now in this here United States of Absurdia.

Protections under the State Secrets Act or any other act under the Constitution are for legal activities. No laws in the United States have been written to protect criminals from prosecution for illegal activities. There are no special exclusions for the president or anyone else to engage in illegal activities. Where is the legislation that enumerates the laws that may be broken by special classes of people. If no such legislation exists that lists the laws that may be broken then the rule of law means nothing, because the choice for which laws may be broken is arbitrary. If the right to break laws exists for special classes of people on an arbitrary basis there is no rule of law.

Do we live in a lawless society? Who chooses which laws should be obeyed and which laws should not? If it is the president, we live in a dictatorship. If it is anyone the president chooses, then we live under an aristocracy. Are not aristocracies and dictatorships anti-American, or at the very least anti the principles of a democratic republic under a constitution? If this is not the case then say good-bye to America, because the name and the principles mean nothing.

...from the AP:

...Senators are up against a deadline: the Feb. 1 expiration of the surveillance law. If a new law is not passed by then, some eavesdropping practices that are now legal would be prohibited. Most vexing to the intelligence agencies, the government would have to get court orders to listen in on all communications that pass through U.S. telecommunications switches and computer servers, even those that are between people outside the country...

Interesting way to put it, no? First, the whole "stuff that's legal now would no longer be legal" wording with no comment on the fact that it wasn't legal before, how it became legal, or the arguments being proffered that it should never have been considered legal shades how it reads. But the following sentence is the kicker because it's just downright wrong. That just had to be a quote from someone, but it's not even attributed to anonymous intelligence sources or something along those lines.

Retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies is the most contentious issue. The Senate is expected to vote this week on whether to shield the companies from the roughly 40 pending civil lawsuits alleging violations of communications and wiretapping laws. [snip WH justifications for immunity]...

The companies were helping the administration carry out the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, a still-classified effort that intercepted communications on U.S. soil without oversight from the FISA court from Sept. 11, 2001, to Jan. 17, 2007... (emphasis added)

Seems nobody in the media remembers (believes?) QWEST's arguments that they were asked to do this sort of thing BEFORE the sacred date.

Anyway, those quotes are from the earlier story:

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/01/24/D8UCG9JO1_terrorist_surveillance/index.html

but the later update is not much improved in this regard:

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/01/24/D8UCI7FG0_terrorist_surveillance/index.html

http://nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html

Editorial

[...] Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani [...] is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy [...]

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking [...]

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare [...]

- - NYTimes editorial 01/25/2008

Glenn wrote: “There was some significant, and apparently unexpected, obstructionism on the part of Republicans this afternoon…” “This is where Obama and Clinton's leadership could really make a genuine difference.”

Could it be that the Republicans want Obama and Clinton to go against the immunity bill on Monday so the Republicans can paint presidential hopefuls Obama and Clinton as soft on terror? (Sorry if this has already been suggested.)

Anonymust,

Green and Blacks (the medium strength one) is pure nectar from heaven.

Last year I gave a suicider mouth to mouth (he died), and after washing my mouth out a million times, the Green and Blacks organic chocolate was the only self-medication that could work.

From FindLaw:

United States Code

TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

Section 1547. Interpretation of joint resolution

"Nothing in this chapter -

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or

(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the

President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this chapter."

How could the above be construed to support illegal behavior on the part of the telcoms, with or without the government's permission. Others have been told by their governments that illegal behavior was permissible and resulted in nightmarish excesses. The government disavowed any knowledge about Gary Powers U2 mission over Russia. Why bother to deny knowledge if the executive branch has authorization to do whatever it chooses? Why not break any laws one chooses if one has the right, if caught, to tell the people and the courts to go screw themselves? Is America a nation of free people with equal protection under the law? Under what circumstances is illegal behavior acceptable? Who decides, and to what end? This can readily be resolved in a court of law on a case by case basis. Where is the problem? If circumstances mitigate the offense then let those circumstances be argued in a court of law, rather than be permitted by fiat.

One is not duty bound to commit illegal acts, one does so of his own accord. If one participates in torture of a restrained, unarmed, and defenseless human being it is a crime. If one witnesses the torture of others and does nothing to stop it and does not inform the proper authorities it is a crime. If one orders the torture of others it is a crime.

Where is the confusion? The confusion only exists in a disturbed mind.

If a nation's leaders request or order surveillance of all its citizens as if they are suspects in a crime, it is not because all the citizens are criminals; it is because the leaders are.