who's worked in a large corporate environment is to recall their own experience with surveillance. All of your email is scanned, saved and can be read. Same for any and all of your Internet browsing. They will also search for anything that might be considered negative out there about you on the web.

And how is this information used in the corporate environment? If they want to fire you for whatever reason - good or bad, performance or politics - they pick through this information and use it to provide any justification needed to show you the door. Don't ask how much of any of this may follow along when you apply for your next job. That's pretty much the majority of large corporate environments right now worldwide.

Used at the national level? They could have all of your phone calls, email, web browsing and personal information that's available to the government and not (one hopes) available to a corporation on file. How might they use it? How might some fourth or fifth level government employee use it with an axe to grind? Would they have everything any of us have posted here? Sure. Do they? Don't know and we won't know now with FISA.

Big Brother isn't just an intellectual concept of worry to only, say, the Chinese.

While Bush and the telecoms will benefit from this the Democrats and Senator Obama are looking forward to enjoying these powers come 2009. Should that happen we will see a concerted effort by the Republicans to change the laws and defend our Constitution.

Makes you sick doesn't it?

This one is more focused on the Barrow endorsement, but hits on this whole shameful chapter in US history as well.

Mr. Obama,

I am writing, along with many others, to ask that you be more judicious in choosing the company that you keep. I speak of your recent endorsement for Rep. Barrow of GA.

Now, I am a pragmatist and I see how having the right leaning blue dog pseudo-democrat may serve you better in the general by preventing a strong conservative and "centrist" backlash in a traditonally republican region. What baffles me is your choice to become actively involved in the race.

You have recorded a radio ad for a candidate who has called Democratic calls for withdrawal from Iraq "cut and run tactics", a candidate who has fought for illegal warrantless wire-tapping and telecom immunity.

While the details of the various FISA related issues may bore the general public, they are among the most vital facing America today. The issue of warrantles wire-tapping is the one on which Americans decide if they are still living under the Constitution and Bill of Rights crafted by our forefathers or if we are living in an authoritarian police state ruled by Fear.

While I have been disappointed by your own lack of vigilance in this area, Mr. Barrow has regularly voted for Fear over Freedom. While his candidacy may be more beneficial in the General Election, his positions are toxic to the message of hope that you have been putting forth. The quid pro quo exchange of endorsements stinks of the old guard politics you rail against.

America is watching, Mr. Obama. And while I sincerely wish you every success in November and will do everything in power to see that your opponent loses, I ask that think twice before throwing in your lot with blue dog supporters of the current rogue adminstration.

Warmest Regards,

E.M. Stoveken

I think this will be the last time I am so cordial with any of these spineless siccophants.

I think that means "determined to be lawful" by the President and his pet Attorney-General.

Who needs Courts when you have Bush & Co?

Call, fax, email your Congressional Rep and Senators. Express your frustration and sentiment. Hope that Dodd can filibuster this version too. Call Reid and ask him to docket it at the end of the Fall Congressional Session, i.e. after the election.

But don't get a coronary on this. There is no way the Judicial Branch will agree that they MUST dismiss a case, unconditionally, just because the AG/Executive signs a piece of paper telling them to do so. I would understand a request by AG to dismiss, but FORCING it?

Argument

(Pt. 1): SCOTUS, 01.2005, ruled the Legislative and Executive Branches cannot force judges to adhere to sentencing guidelines. Can the Ledge and Exec force judges to render decisions in a particular way? Judicial independence is paramount to our functioning Constitution and SCOTUS will not take orders from the Executive on how to rule.

(Pt. 2): If AG can sign a certificate forcing judcicial declaration of innocence in a lawsuit pertaining to "Terrorism", can the AG sign a certificate forcing judicial declaration of guilt in a lawsuit pertaining to "Terrorism"? Other side of same coin, eh? Where is the "right to trial"?

(Pt. 3): Without 3rd party (aka Judicial) review of AG's certificate, what's to stop AG from claiming Terrorism in a Scooter Libby trial and forcing dismissal?

This oversteps the Separation of Powers by an order of magnitude and no SCOTUS, not even this one, would allow the precedent of the Executive deciding cases.

I feel ... ... ... ill.

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.

So you talked to Chris Dodd and he told you he wasn't going to filibuster?

And you're mistaken in your premise - my criticism in that post wasn't of Paul Kane, but of Harry Reid. Reid is the one who told Kane that Dodd was only doing it for show. Kane just passed it along. We'll see if Reid was right.

I'd like to underscore the fact that in 2006, when the Congress was controlled by Bill Frist and Denny Hastert, the administration tried to get a bill passed legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, but was unable. They had to wait until the Congress was controlled by Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to accomplish that.

That's really stunning. And damning. Any background on how that went?