That was the wrong thing to say. You don't read Glenn very much, do you?

You are about to get descended on by the truth squad, and frankly, you deserve it.

Not only has Glenn addressed absolutely everything you say he hasn't, in multiple blogs, he addressed them in-depth.

But hey, you're about to find out. Stick around.

Please bear with me as this is the first comment I've ever posted on a blog of any kind. This is an update for anyone out there who is feeling "post-rage despair." I made multiple calls to congressional offices, as well as the Obama campaign office. I let Obama's volunteers know, truthfully, of a number of previously pledged contributions from my extended family that are hanging in the balance (literally sitting on desks). I was impressed that they were frankly confident that Obama would step up. Then came "the statement." I canvassed my family and called again to inform them not to expect anything on those pledges (they may even have lost some votes), and got an unexpected answer. Far from trying to put "lipstick on a pig," the well-informed volunteer confidently counselled to "wait and see," that Obama means to strip the immunity provision and can and will do so. Perhaps I'm grasping at straws. Perhaps there is a ray of hope.

Did a little research and my understanding is that it's just rolling back the FISA law pretty much to where it's been before Bush. I mean, the FISA court (an actual court with federal judges) has been around for awhile, right? Government officials go to the court and say, hi, we want to tap this person's phone because of these reasons and here's our proof and the court (with judges) says ok, and I swear I was reading about this in a Tom Clancy book a few years ago. Congressional oversight, and all that, so even if it wasn't public, it was monitored. Sometimes a little fishy because they could also get the okay AFTER the tapping, etc, but more or less on the up and up.

So, enter Bush, and laws that basically said that he didn't have to go to FISA, he could do whatever the hell he wanted, perpetual emergency powers, etc, which as far as I'm concerned lies the problem. Telecom immunity had to be an essential part of that plan (and still has to be), because they didn't want to get sued, especially since getting sued would make what and to whom the government was spying on.

Okay, so my understanding is that this new bill pretty much rolls Fisa's powers back closer to where they were. I just don't have a problem with that, especially with oversight, and reasonable proof of need. In fact, count me in with a sigh of relief.

Cause the thing of it is, people, they've always had the ability to spy on us, in some instances it is necessary, so the way they do it and the process of doing it really does matter.

And on another note, I think it's pretty disingenuous of Glenn to act like he doesn't know this. There's not a chance in hell he hadn't heard of FISA before 9/11, or didn't know what it did, and why.

Nice try,though.

Really, one for the historical record.

And as for weeds and stinking lillies; weeds have the advantage of never flowering. Nothing to rot away, you know exactly what you're getting. Let's start a pro-weed movement. Oh, wait there already is one.

I'm being silly today, there's no point in rehashing this again; Glenn has left little to add.

Regarding PROCESS, Kagro X seems expert, although I imagine Pow Wow is pretty adept as well.

Kagro X outlined the POSSIBLE, here

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/19/15338/6112/466/538538

or click sig.

My comments as to predicted outcome are predicated upon what I've (via Pow Wow) seen so far...

"People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did."

Would you please write more explicitly about your experiences with this? In some updates perhaps? It's such a disengenuous stance that it demands a level of specificity that you didn't provide in this post. Examples please.

Thanks for the link to the Daily Kos article.

I'm not sure what can be done besides filibuster, which is of course unlikely. But what CAN be done by the next US President is to encourage the House and/or the Senate to "overturn" this retched FISA bill and reinstate our civil liberties provided in the Constitution. It matters not if this "sunsets" in 2012. To my knowledge, Congress can just as easily undo a bad bill as it can create one.

But I'm certainly not holding my breath. It would take a real leader for real change to push for this whether it be from a member of Congress or the President.

Nipping potential sore spot issues in the bud, while protecting what could potentially be his spying apparatus.

People claim that principles go out the window when being practical or when politics is involved, and then they play apologist when these things happen. It is absurd.

I was just about to donate to the Obama campaign, but sent the money to support the Act Bleu campaign against this bill instead.

I, too, am curious about the notions Dean put forward re: ambiguities concerning future charges for the telcoms. I'm not an attorney, but it seems that if they can get a pass on civil litigation because of this boneheaded business that The Village Idiot TOLD them warrantless domestic spying was just fine, couldn't the same meme be tossed around if criminal liability were tackled. (Not that it will be.)

As always, well turned article, Mr. G.

I wanted to express my gratitude for Glenn Greenwald's unrelenting coverage of this issue and, perhaps more importantly, the tangible actions he has taken to fight this egregious legislation. As an Obama supporter, I just sent a letter to Bill Burton expressing my dismay with Senator Obama's decision to pull a political about-face and support this bill. Though there is little I feel I can do otherwise, I will be re-routing the (admittedly paltry) funds I've been donating to the Obama campaign into donations supporting those elected officials who openly opposed the "compromise." Salon readers owe a debt of gratitude to Greenwald for keeping us so well and objectively informed. This is what journalism should be.