I doubt that the "worrisome gap" is as simple and trivial as we've been led to believe, and as it sounds like Glenn believes. If anyone has ever explained, in terms that are anything like clear, just what it was that the FISA court objected to, I haven't seen it.

What we're expected to believe is that the FISA court found out that some of the foreign-to-foreign calls that were tapped happened to run through the US at some point along the way, and then these inveterate rubber stampers stood up in high dudgeon and cried, "You can't do that! It's a plain violation of the law!"

I don't buy it for a second. It would have been out of character. And I can't imagine how they would have learned that the communication passed through US switches. The NSA sets up a tap on a phone in Marrakesh, and listens there to a conversation with someone in Islamabad. The NSA probably is savvy enough to take note of any packet-switching and routing information they can along with the contents of the call. But under what imaginable scenario would they be sharing that routing information, or be asked to share it, with the FISA court?

What they're not telling us, I submit, is that the FISA court knew these foreign to foreign calls were passing through US switches because that court learned of the fact that NSA was hoovering up every call from anywhere to anywhere, foreign or domestic, passing through those switches, and then taking special note of those between foreign contact points of interest.

There is no way to fix that "worrisome gap" without putting a stamp of approval on the wholesale hoovering. And that's what this whole charade is about.

If one of you can document where my interpretation of the FISA court's objection has been ruled out, I'd be deeply grateful, because I'd rather be wrong.

I just paid a an illegal parking fine. I had two tires from my pickup in the water hydrant, No Park Zone. That's another $5.00 outta my pocket! Careful.

Why aren't people more careful?

Why don't politicians stop snooping?

Why they must know they will croak too.

Remind 'um, will ya'? All they do is muster turmoil.

Why don't 'um consider slaughtered war-spirits will gather?

Why do they live in such DREAD? Why not get respected before DEATH? 'Um disgusting. 'Um are big problems. They sure enough CRAZY!

FOOLS.

`

I'll have to e-mail yoo to ask for some red lobster money? Or, maybe he has 'stuffed' laggard leaky ears? What louts! I just got here. The FISA chit-chat is too confusing. Knowledge and good traditons are getting lost way too quickly. Pinch them?

DCLAW!?

I need help with another toppled outhouse.

Whoever uses it... Warning... There is to be NO installed outhouse door with a clear-cut Moon.

People need a good seashore view.

When the Democratic politicians agree to a compromise (as they surely will), thereby establishing that the Democratic Party, as Glenn has put it, "favors warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty", I predict there will be those who will continue to hold to an unsustainable claim: They will claim to be against the imperial presidency as manifest by Bush, while at the same time, claim to have faith that the Democratic Party will reverse the "accomplishments" of the Bush era with respect to unchecked presidential power.

The absurdity of this position can only be reconciled if one also believes that the rule of law is subservient to political expediency - in this case, that the law takes a back seat to that which is necessary for attaining the power of the presidency.

However, this is merely a re-statement of executive theory as developed under Bush/Cheney/Yoo. That presidential power is paramount, the rule of law secondary or subservient.

There is no effective or functional difference between, say, Bush, issuing a signing statement that ignores the intent of a law in order to preserve, for future exercising, his power as president, and the Democrats ignoring the intent of the law in order to preserve their bid to exercise presidential power in the future.

In both instances, the power of the presidency is seen to be the paramount concern, the rule of law a secondary or subservient consideration.

Despite this, there will be those who excuse the Democrats for ignoring the rule of law now (although they may curse them for being "lame" or "corrupt"), in order to attain presidential power.

Such persons will see a distinction where none exists, thus preserving and conferring the prerogatives of presidential power...at the expense of their own freedoms.

America's two-party system is a brilliant disguise - at least for those eager to be fooled.

Well, they did. And I'm going to say the same thing about it this time that I said last time... don't go whaling on the Democratic leadership *too* quickly.

The Republican leadership in Congress is going to be bringing this up, constantly, right through the end of this session. They *need* telecoms immunity; it covers up their own criminal acts. It's only rational to expect James Boehner to try to drag Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer off and pitch immunity every single time he sees them. (They've gotta be avoiding him like the plague by now.)

Since it's genuinely important to them, every time Boehner manages to get Hoyer into a corner, one of his staffers is going to "leak" the "fact" of an "imminent compromise" on immunity. The corporate media then repeats what they're given; it's what they DO, these days, anybody who reads this blog knows that. You can always get some low-level staffer from some Blue Dog's office... hey, look, it's Rep. Carney!... to provide "bipartisan" gloss.

I'm NOT saying, don't watch the news stories. I'm saying, on this particular subject, watch for substantiated quotes from Democratic leaders. Nothing else matters. When, last week, Silvestre said he was "fine" with a bit of kabuki-theater language that would have effectively given the telecoms immunity, that was worrisome. Today's NYT story is nothing.

Letters to your Representative saying, "I know, the Republcans are still pushing on this issue, and all of us who are your actual friends appreciate your continued willingness to stand up to them", those are helpful. Letters saying "OMG UR CAVING AGAIN KILL YOU KILL YOU ALL!!11!!"... not helpful.