Bush's position is that "he" promised the telecom's safety/immunity, whatever ...

It could get really ugly if his "power" to make such promises were opened for discussion ... along with all those other findings and exceptions ...

{what's Cheney up to these days? }

At the pleasure of the President. Does that ring a bell? The whole point of this exercise is that we should not have to depend on the good will of the executive branch for the information necessary to fulfill our role as the citizens of a democracy. The Constitution is quite clear about this, and if it's no longer considered to be operative, then there's little left to debate.

Also, I have to wonder more prosaically how many NSA employees eavesdrop on their wives or girlfriends, or supermodels they think are hot or whatnot. How may are listening to Bill Gate's phone calls hoping to get good stock tips? There are plenty of non-conspiratorial ways unlimited spying can be abused that don't involve the government setting out to create 1984. -- Scientician

I recall a fairly well-researched, data rich study done in the U.K. shortly after they went whole hog for cameras on every street corner. Its unsurprising finding was that human monitors disproportionately focused on and tracked good looking young women. Given the generally law-abiding public behavior of young women, (and the sex of the monitors) this was assumed to be a misuse of the technology. (Perhaps one of our resident trolls would like to explain why this is an acceptable 'externality', or how this sort of thing 'never' happens here in the U.S. of A.)

The fundamental reason for supporting efforts to reign in our surveillance-crazy executive branch is this: without oversight, security personnel will misuse their powers of surveillance. Not may, but will. They should not be subject to temptation. We, common civilian nobodies, have a duty to make misuse difficult.

The preznit is mighty pleasured these days. In fact, he's joyful and sleeps well at night, donchaknow.

In the face of clear evidence that he's delusional and is committing harm to others (Iraq civilians, our military, Afghani civilians, US citizens left unprotected from unsafe food, air, water, medication and consumer products, just for starters), isn't there some remedy besides impeachment that is based on the Constitution?

If Bush were a private citizen CEO, I believe he would already have been evaluated, diagnosed and treated for mental illness. Certainly a corporate board of directors would have removed crticial decisions from his purview. So why can't we the people effect a call for removal from office based on medical incapacitation (mental illness)?

Where do I join up? A nation of voyeurs. Even without the action department necessary for kicking down doors and general intimidation (Ve know vat you did last summer, Democrat) this hardly speaks well of us, does it?

Make that CPDBW. I was never very good at alphabet soup. Now Tom Ka Gai, or Ribollita, or even Chicken Soup with Kreplach, that's another matter....

Glenn's point is well taken. One wonders why the establishment press is not curious at all about what the Bush administration was doing in its surveillance activities after 9/11 (or possibly before). Are ALL of them still caught up in that post-9/11 burst of faux patriotism that overtook our nation? Or is there a more sinister reason? I'd really like the answer.

I get a clue from the similarly incurious Congress, especially the Senate Democrats who fell into line so quickly to support retroactive immunity. That gives me a sense that most, if not all, of them were briefed on the surveillance being done and therefore were complicit in those activities. It's no secret that our elected representatives in Washington liked getting their egos stroked by being let in on super secret information. I'm guessing that maybe these same senators don't want the public to know about how much they knew if the activities come to light in a courtroom.

In any case, it's really appalling to me how the establishment (the government and the press) pulls together to keep reprehensible governmental behavior from the eyes of us citizens. It's like we can't be trusted in participating in our own democracy.

With regard to your question of whether it was the accumulation of a file on MLK or the use of it that constituted a crime, here is an all-too-real example that affects every single one of us:

Vast computer databases give curious employees the ability to look up sensitive information on people with the click of a mouse. The WE Energies database includes credit and banking information, payment histories, Social Security numbers, addresses, phone numbers and energy usage. In some cases, it even includes income and medical information.

Experts say some companies do little to stop such abuses even though they could lead to identity theft, stalking and other privacy invasions. And companies that uncover violations can keep them quiet because in many cases it is not illegal to snoop, only to use the data for crimes.

Emphasis added.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2rbuna

Given the massive amount of data being hoovered by the intelligence community from the splitters that have been installed and the huge number of people who must be involved in analysis once it progresses beyond the electronic stage, I think we can safely assume that illegal "side trips" are taken regularly by lower level people in this process. Given the lack of oversight that Congress has shown, it is only a very short extrapolation to say that this shows the natural human tendency for anyone in such a situation to overstep the bounds and engage in improper activity. J. Edgar Hoover would have been in absoulte nirvana with these tools and opportunities.

The question --

What happened between September 2001 and October 2003, before Comey and Goldmsith came aboard?

-- is a good one, but why take for granted that the spying operation began "in response to 9/11"? It's an even bet that the Bush regime was bent on expanding domestic spying operations from the day they took office. September 2001 provided them with a rationale, but why assume the practices didn't start in January 2001?