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.

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.

For things like FISA, Iraq, and other failures of the Democratic Congress, the November election doesn't mean "Change". I think it actually means something more like "fewer excuses for not changing".

Likewise Obama, should he gain office, doesn't necessarily mean "change", in spite of the branding and marketing. Maybe it means something like "an administration more receptive to pressure". He has taken constitutional issues on board, has spoken about them well, following Dodd's withdrawl and endorsement.

Putting Obama in office is simply a crude but important first step. Upon his arrival in office, pressure will need to be applied immediately on issues like FISA, Iraq, etc.

How is FISA so obviously unconstitutional? Neither the fact that the FISA court operates in secrecy nor the fact that it approves the vast majority of requests for warrants makes it unconstitutional.

Fire away, anywhere you like, with my blessing. Goes for anyone else inclined, too.

I block-copied a quote from Glenn's article, and added language to my Congressperson and Senators as follows and sent it to them, with copies to Pelosi and Reid (Hoyer's e-mail has a zip-code screen on it to prevent one from non-constituents to send him e-mail):

Dear Congressperson Eshoo and Senators Boxer and Feinstein:

I am gravely concerned that the FISA bill propounded by Senate Republicans and Rockefeller Democrats will end up becoming law, giving Bush and Cheney a free pass for the blatantly illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping done over the last seven years, because the August deadline is fast approaching. This time, I will not allow Congress to cave in to Bush in a last minute “rush” to “fix” FISA before the August deadline for the existing Protect America Act (PAA) surveillance orders to expire.

As Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer and superb blogger on Salon.com noted:

“Democrats control the agenda in Congress. They determine what bills are voted on. All they have to do is force a House and Senate vote on a bill that does two simple things: (a) exempt foreign-to-foreign calls from FISA's warrant requirements and (b) extend the PAA surveillance orders by 6 or 9 months. When the GOP filibusters that bill, or when George Bush vetoes it, then that will obviously preclude the GOP from using the expiration of those PAA orders as a club to beat Democrats, since it will be as clear as day -- so clear that even our national press corps can understand it -- that it was the President and the GOP, not Congressional Democrats, which caused those orders to expire.”

Since this bill is currently in the House, I expect Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer to honor our committment to the rule of law, and the Constitution, and to, at minimum, introduce a temporary “fix” bill as outlined above. If Bush vetoes it, or Senate Republicans block it via a filibuster, they will only have themselves to blame for FISA’s limitations on surveillance.

I will be following Congressional action closely on this issue.

cc: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

This may seem like nit-picking, but doesn’t the fact that the warrantless surveillance began by the Bush administration prior to 9.11 (at least 6 months) prove that it does nothing to “guard against terrorists”? If the Bushies began the operation to get a jump start on “protecting our safety”, then why was there no major shake-up of intelligence people getting fired after 9.11 since they dropped the ball on this super-important-top-secret-program that meant so much to Bush & Cheney? Did any of the “monitoring guys” prior to 9.11 ever explain wha' happen'?

The idea that the Bush administration was theoretically proactive in fighting terrorism prior to 9.11 (without ever talking about it, of course, they’re so humble) is beyond ridiculous, particularly since they proved with Katrina that they believe strongly that the government shouldn't do shit about the American people's safety.

Far be it for me to want to spoil the annual 9.11 activities that Republicans love, but I think the case could be made that warrantless surveillance (and the obsession of the Bush administration to spy on Americans instead of doing ANYTHING to monitor Bush’s pals in Saudi Arabia) seems directly responsible FOR 9.11 going off without a hitch… Of course, the down side to that argument is that there would be no September wreath laying ceremonies, so I guess it’s a trade-off.