Who knows the workings of the Senate must be crafting means to stall, stave off, avert, delay, table, rewrite, amend, or some how stop the FISA death to our nation, history, and liberty.

This is worth so much more than the election; which still could be won better and truer as the fight settled clearly where we must go and not go as a goverment, a society and as inheritors of genius gifts of freedom and protections not in any way needing to be undermined by stupid lying cowardice when the reverse could win the day.

Keep it up, all.

Camelot's author inspired us once with 'Profiles In Courage.'

'Audacity' would seem the perfect approach to honor that legacy.

Now is the time for all good then to fight for our country.

I knew the colonized remark would get a rise outta you. You've been pulling my chain for a while now, I thought I'd tweak you a little. I'm fully aware that only Northern Ireland is still under British rule, but I liked your colorful analysis.

As to running in to folks who look like John McCain, well, aren't we Irish types supposed to hate the Scots? Does that apply to Scots-Irish too? I lose track sometimes.

Hey, as long as he doesn't become president, he hasn't really done the country any more harm than your typical right-winger. I'd sit down and have a pint with him. I'd be sure to ask him why, after his first visit to the, "open air market," in Iraq, when, coincidentally dozens of people he had met and spoken to were killed the next day, he decided it was okay to return for another photo-op. (look it up)

So we now have the Democratic leadership folding to a president and opposing party that has no popular support. On one of the most important issues of our time. It is quite possible that now that they will be holding the rein of power, they like the idea of being able to listen in on any and all domestic conversations and e-mails. At least then they will be able to see the Repubs e-mails going forward, which they were not able to subpoena in the past. This is a dark day. My own party sells out like yesterdays news. At this stage one must ask what is the defining difference between the parties. Where is the Mr Smith of our generation. It is very very sad indeed. I do not see a solution.

Just for the record: I enjoy your posts here. You keep everyone on their toes.

Here's the 4th, in all its glory:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

Over the years, the courts have interpreted this language to mean that wherever you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you have a 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

And, most importantly, a government agent must obtain a "warrant" before invading this expectation of privacy.

In other words, the government must articulate to a neutral fact finder (also known as a judge, sometimes a lesser creature known as a "magistrate") a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing--supported by facts--in order to violate that expectation of privacy, wherever it exists. And it exists in your home, your car, and in your online and telephonic communications.

The U.S. criminal justice system has been able to function spectacularly well under this requirement for years. Facts giving rise to "probable cause" can be gathered by diligent investigation that does not violate anyone's civil liberties. Once those facts are in hand and properly presented to a judge by a D.A., a warrant can issue, and wiretapping can begin. The FISA law provided for emergency and expedited warrants and was extremely law enforcement-friendly.

You actually benefited from this provision. What if, just speaking hypothetically, you wanted to have phone sex with your boy- or girlfriend who was in Spain on business? Let's assume you're a law-abiding taxpaying citizen. But the government has erroneously matched your last name with someone on its "terror watch list" and decides to tap your phone without going through all that 4th Amendment nonsense. They've got a country to protect goddamnit!

In some NSA database, there might then be a recording of that phone call, but we really don't know, because it's all so secret. Maybe there's a transcript, or a soundwave analysis of your speech, or a report by an analyst about what you said and what your boyfriend or girlfriend said and how long you talked. How do you feel about that?

That's what the new FISA "compromise" bill makes room for, because that bill makes no provision for a meaningful review by a judge of the facts that support such a wiretap. Does that sound okay to you?

P.S. A reply that contains any form of "I would never have phone sex with my boy- or girlfriend in Spain" is not acceptable.

P.P.S. A reply that contains any form of "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" is similarly not acceptable.

I don't believe in blind allegiance, but a tiny bit of faith in Obama's savvy and good intentions would be nice.

He's a witch! Burn him! A witch, a witch, a witch, a witch, we've found a witch!

Good intentions? The only way you could get that impression is if you consider his words, his platform, and his record as a legislator. You Obamabots are all alike. You shouldn't talk with your mouth full of Kool-aid. I forget, was he born in a manger in Bethlehem? Only by letting Mr. Murderous Psychopath McCain win can we get any real change, everyone knows that. That's change you can believe in!

[/snark]