Initial reports said that Hoyer bypassed Leahy and Conyers (chair of the Senate & House Judiciary Committees) to get this deal done. Is there any chance some pressure could get them loudly opposing this?

Just a thought.

realize that they'll get NO CREDIT for this "bipartison agreement" from the Republicans when election time rolls around. They'll STILL be criticized as being soft on terror. Nice work, guys.

Compromise: A give and take between entities. Congress gives and Bush takes. I am ashamed of our Democratic Congress.

It's a Pelosi/Hoyer decision what legislation reaches the floor, and all Conyers can do is vote against it.

Jawohl, mein Führer!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

-Abraham Lincoln

This is what Casual Observer and William Timberman and I were discussing yesterday on a previous thread and this is precisely the aim of the tactic of terrorism or asymetrical warfare because they are not strong enough to do it by force. The existential threat is our overreaction and response to the threat or act.

Again I would suggest that people read Professor Scott Horton's brief interview with CT expert Michael Sheehan at Harper's.

Six Questions for Michael Sheehan, Author of Crush the Cell

http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment

Today many of you will feel like the "terrists have won" or that the constitution has been shredded for good and "America has died" and our system of government is hopelessly corrupt. That's another emotional overreaction.

America, the constitution and our system of government are tougher and more resilient than that, and so are we.

As Sheehan points out, the threat has been grossly exaggerated, but the threat is real. It is not imaginary. Read the interview. Then ponder the media circus surrounding a successful "dirty bomb" attack like he hypothesizes in a major urban center and think what kind of overreaction and oppression, loss of civil liberties and rights that event might manifest. Not to mention the loss of life and how it might change the political landscape of the country forever.

I don't know specifically what Sheehan thinks this of all this but my guess is not much in terms of making us any safer. He says all we needed to fight terrorism effectively we had during the Clinton admin.

In the mean time, Glenn and other attorneys can look at the constitutionality of this travesty and see if it can be challenged in court. It's a long an incremental process but some folks just need to learn to be patient. All "subversives" need to learn patience.

I have a couple of questions to ask. First is to Glenn, will you issue an apology to Paul Kane? You took him to task last December ,for saying Dodd's filibuster on telco immunity was merely presidential campaign politics. Well it seems he was right because Dodd ain't doing shit to stop this bill. When proven wrong about something, you should admit it.

Second question is to Tempus. What do you think you will accomplish by voting for McCain this year? You say you aren't going to vote for democrats again. I share your anger and frustration but the key isn't to stop voting democratic, you have to start voting for the better democrats. You have to get out there and make sure the better dem wins the primaries. That Gitmo ruling the supremes just handed down was 5-4, one more conservative on the court and it would of been the other way. That's the narrow razor's edge all of our rights and freedoms hang on. If McCain gets elected prez, he's going to get to put 2 maybe 3 justices on the court. If he does that, kiss your freedoms goodbye. So try to calm down and start thinking logically folks.

In the Title VIII section quoted, there is one provision that caught my eye:

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

I'm certainly no lawyer or legal scholar but does the above provision not mean that a district court judge must first determine whether the request by POTUS was lawful in the first place before dismissing the suit?

I'm in Congressman Hoyer's Prince Georges County district, and I'm absolutely ashamed to say I've voted for him all twelve times I've been able to since I came of age. Pressed my wife to vote for him too. Shook his hand at least twice and told him what a great job he's done for us. Now I just feel slimy that I've supported the man "representing" me.

I've called his office, mailed and emailed today and yesterday, donated money to the new ActBlue campaign against him, but you just know it won't matter in the long run.

I just hope that some day we'll discover what leverage was used to make this "leader" of the Democratic Party sell us out.

Superdelegates have made their endorsements. And now the bill comes due. Obama would like to do something here -- really he would -- but he's just one vote in the Senate, he has an obligation to protect his Congressional supporters, and besides, politics is a dirty business full of compromises, and people need to learn to suck it up here and soldier on. And donate to his campaign. Especially the donate part.

With no more than an hour's notice, this development:

Meeting Time: 2pm Thursday 6/19

H.Res. ___ – Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes. (Supplemental Appropriations Act)

H.R. 6304 – The "FISA Amendments Act of 2008".

http://www.rules.house.gov/comm_schedule110.htm

The FISA bill text:

http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr6304.pdf

Both items are on the House Rules Committee agenda this afternoon. Floor rules for both will be adopted by mid-late afternoon today (FISA may also get a waiver to speed adoption).

Though called a "FY 2008" supplemental, the Iraq funding extends through most of FY 2009 (and much is "to remain available until expended"). "Enduring bases" endure:

Iraq.—The Administration's request has been reviewed for military construction in Iraq to ensure that the recommended projects are consistent with contingency construction standards. The establishment of permanent bases in Iraq is not supported, and the amended bill does not include any funds to establish any such base, or convert any base in Iraq from a temporary to permanent status. The amended bill includes language prohibiting the obligation or expenditure of funds for Iraq construction projects provided under Military Construction, Army, and Military Construction, Air Force, until the Secretary of Defense certifies that none of the funds are to be used for the purpose of providing facilities for permanent basing of U.S. military personnel in Iraq. The Secretary of Defense is further directed to provide to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress, no later than 30 days after enactment of this act, an updated Master Plan for U.S. basing in Iraq, including an inventory of installations that have been closed; those that are scheduled to close, and the timeline for their closure; and a finite list of potential enduring locations describing the mission, military construction requirements, and projected population of these locations.

http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_supp_pp_jes.pdf