In the previous post, totoro asked whether it was a fantasy to think that all of this activity regarding FISA is a part of some grand plan by the Democrats to once and for all reveal the Republicans' true nature. I myself have sometimes fallen sway to this hope/illusion.

My bigger concern is what is Bush's intent in pushing for this bill at such a late date in his Presidency? I understand that the retroactive immunity is there to prevent anyone from actually finding out what abuses the Bush administration has perpetrated over the past seven years. However, why the need for basket warrants and these other expanded powers, when all that is needed to improve FISA is a minor fix involving foreign transmissions routed through US lines? This is where I leave fantasyland and start entering conspiracyville. Wouldn't a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress reverse the more egregious provisions? Or is there a plan to prevent a Democratic president, so that the Democratic Congress can continue to go along with a Republican president?

The Republicans submitted a motion to bypass the amendments and go directly to the (no good rotten lousy very bad) Intelligence Committee version of the FISA bill.

This was essentially a call for cloture on the original bill. If it had passed, we'd have gone directly to a vote on the original bill - but only after the thirty-hour period for debate that always results from a call for cloture.

If they hadn't done this, Reid would have pushed through rapid up or down votes on all the amendments, held sessions through the weekend to get through the obligatory thirty hour period for Dodd's filibuster of the IC bill itself, and we'd now be seeing the cloture vote on the bill itself, followed by passage and the giveaway to Bush.

The Republicans didn't want to allow Reid to capitulate on everything. This was either because they wanted to have a "Dems have left us defenseless against Obama" club to swing, or because they didn't want to take the miniscule chance that DiFi's amendment would pass, and the further miniscule chance that the FISA court would actually secretly rule against the telecoms.

Last year the Daily show ran a montage of previous Bush SOTU speeches, all of which started out with the phrase: "The State of our Union is Strong." It will be interesting to see how he spins that this year, what with his call for an economic stimulus package, the subprime mortgage crisis, and the pending expiration of FISA ... I mean the Protect My Ass Act (BTW, how hard would it be for reporters to understand how a bill becomes law? Schoolhouse Rock covered this 25 years ago!) As for FISA, I expect the President to say that the State of the Union will be weaker if Congress does not pass the SIC bill.

Actually, I just had another thought. If the Senate passes the SIC bill with retroactive immunity, then this would need to be reconciled with the House bill, which does not contain immunity. However, since the House is not in session after tomorrow, this means that both houses would have to hash the bill out in committee tomorrow and then both vote on a final bill for the President's signature by tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise, the PAA would expire anyway because there would be no final bill for the President to sign? Do you think maybe this is why McConnell may have been proposing a short extension, because the bills could not be reconciled by tomorrow anyway? Does this make any sense? I am trying to follow this and work on an appellate brief at the same time.

Apologies to openmouthedfool for reading the nom wrong.

Glenn,

I wrote to my senators today, and as smarmy as it was I got a quick reply from Sen Chambliss. It was full of misstatements and innuendo about how 9/11 changed everything. So I wrote him back:

Dear Senator Chambliss:

Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter today. I understand you may be getting quite a few letters on this and have come up with a standard reply, but I wanted you to be sure that these issues are very important to me.

I understand that 9/11 was a horrible attack and was bound to change many things, but surely you aren't suggesting that the threat from terrorists is greater than the threats we faced from the former Soviet Union, when we were facing mutual assured destruction. During the whole cold war we were able to take on and overcome that threat without giving up the rights that made us a free country.

My opposition to the telecom immunity is not for companies who obey the law, if they obey the law they don't need immunity do they? My opposition to the immunity provision is that it immunizes companies who broke the law knowingly, to assist the Administration, while It was knowingly breaking the law. If they can't afford the billions of dollars in damages that may result then perhaps they should have followed the law, as some companies did.

I understand that the FISA law needs to be updated to cover new technology. I fully support the idea that we should track terrorists wherever they are. What I am opposed to is giving ANY administration unchecked power that is likely to be abused. The whole reason FISA came into being was because previous administrations abused their power. You may implicitly trust President Bush, but will you trust President Hillary Clinton with the same powers and no oversight?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Benjamin Franklin

If we are willing to give up our freedom out of fear of terrorists, then the terrorists have already won.

I hope you are willing to reconsider and stand up for the constitution today.

I got the same form letter back again. Saxby Chambliss is up for re-election this year.

strikes me that the bushies want this passed to erase the trail of their wrongdoing ... but also to set precedent to absolve ALL wrongdoing in the face of DANGER. to validate all the yoo memos, and all memos we don't know of. to retire and swim in pools os oil, blood, and money forver.

as a sidenote ... i saw pt anderson's "there will be blood" ... and believe it should be required material to understand the depravity of folks like cheney and bush.