http://nytimes.com/2008/06/22/weekinreview/22risen.html

The Executive Power Awaiting the Next President
By JAMES RISEN
Published: June 22, 2008

President Bush’s drive for the greatest expansion in executive power since the Nixon era is slowly grinding to a halt after years of challenges by the courts, Congress, and now, the political calendar. Yet that hardly means that he has been pushed all the way back to Sept. 10, 2001.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled against Mr. Bush, saying that detainees at Guantánamo Bay can contest their detention in court. But Congress has allowed some key administration tactics in the war on terror to continue, including the use of some harsh interrogation techniques by the Central Intelligence Agency and broad authority to wiretap Americans.

As a result, the next president will inherit powers much expanded since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. [...]

- - James Risen 06/22/2008

Absolutely correct. Not just for Obama of course, but for all the players, especically Hoyer. Hoyer clearly calculates that, while there will be some fussing at him from civil libertarians, his district margin of support can withstand it. In this way he is indeed showing judgement and leadership. He feels comfortable enough in his district that he is willing to take us on.

As you very rightly said (and as the NRA will attest), the trick it to change that calculation. To make elected officials more afraid of us than they are of the other guys--regardless of who those other guys might be. NRA has done this. AIPAC has done it. To some extent the religious right has done it.

As I see it, our primary mission now is to cause serious pain, and to ensure that everyone clearly understands where that pain is coming from. Us. imo, getting these first two is just a test--to see if this can be done. but by itself, it's not much, it is not sufficient.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/
/20080624_Editorial__Bush_s_Domestic_Spying.html

Editorial: Bush's Domestic Spying

Horse-trading privacy

The cover-up is nearly complete. With congressional approval, the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mail for nearly six years will be spared the third-degree treatment by any judge or jury.

At the same time, Bush or his successor would have virtual free rein to continue the massive antiterror surveillance sweeps of communications to and from this country.

Whatever the risk from another terror attack, Americans' privacy would be the assured casualty from these antiterror tactics.

While a secret federal court would have the power to deny warrants, a gaping loophole exists in the new surveillance law approved Friday by the House. Agents would be able to eavesdrop without a warrant in weekly installments. That's a pretty big asterisk on the Fourth Amendment's constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Indeed, Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) said the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act offered no safeguard against future lawless spying.

It is important to renew the surveillance law before standing warrants expire this summer, but this is not the way to do it.

Congressional Democrats caved to Bush's insistence that the measure shield telecommunications companies from more than 40 privacy lawsuits stemming from the post-9/11 warrantless spying.

Those lawsuits would be tossed now under a FISA provision that merely requires the companies to produce paperwork showing the Bush White House ordered their cooperation. That's as close to blanket immunity as it gets.

The value in pursuing the civil suits was not to punish companies that cooperated in time of national emergency. In fact, the firms should have been shielded from crippling damages.

However, the lawsuits offered the best means to plumb what occurred during the spy program. That avenue would be blocked now, and it's doubtful that reviews ordered by several agencies' inspectors general will provide a better public accounting.

It's incredible to hear Democrats try to justify their capitulation on grounds that they forced Bush to accept an additional $95 billion worth of domestic spending. Unemployment insurance and higher-education benefits for veterans, great stuff. But since when is it right to horse-trade over the cherished, constitutional right to privacy?

There's still time for the Senate to stand up for the Constitution and reject this deal.

- - Philadelphia Inquirer

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/24/BL2008062400869.html

Battered Congress Syndrome
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, June 24, 2008; 11:31 AM

President Bush doesn't hesitate to kick Congress around, but Congress just can't bring itself to kick back.

During oral arguments yesterday about whether a federal judge should enforce congressional subpoenas against a belligerent White House, representatives of the judicial and executive branches both noted that Congress hasn't exercised its full constitutional powers.

[...]

- - Dan Froomkin

Glenn,

I can't understand how any journalist or editorialist or pundit of any political stripe could support this, and I wonder what I'm missing.

Don't journalists use phones and e-mails? If this bill allows the power to engage in "vacuum-cleaner" surveillance of communications over U.S. telephone and email networks with no warrant requirement (and no required connection to Terrorism). Don't they consider that as public figures, whose jobs occasionally (even amongst the most dutiful sycophants) make people in power uncomfortable, they might be on the receiving end of these powers? What would be the point of being all principled about protecting your sources if the government could just go through your e-mail and phone records and not even tell you? If they didn't like the stories you did they could just snoop around until they found your membership to the crossdressing website and just blackmail you to shut you up. Do Hannity and O'Reilly have so little imagination that they can't foresee a time when a political opponent might hold those powers? Do they just assume that Democrats are too girly to ever play dirty? Or have I misinterpreted the meaning of these powers?

I think that what is likely to be a major driving force behind the Democrats folding here has nothing whatsoever to do with their fear of this being used as a campaign issue.

A perhaps simplistic view of a Congresscritter's job, as it has unfortunately become, is to make legislation that economically or in some other way directly benefits their most vocal (i.e. moneygiving) supporters back home. To do that, they have to pass legislation (i.e. pork barrel stuff). The Republicans have made it abundantly clear that one of their primary goals right now is to hide illegal actions, and they are more than capable of halting all work on the hill until they get what they want (shutting down the government until they get what they want has long been a favorite tactic of theirs).

It is likely that the Democrats have gotten all sorts of agreements from Republican leaders that they won't hinder various pet legislation efforts of the Democratic leadership. Therefore, it was a compromise.

The Republicans get CYA, the Dems get to bring home the bacon, and only the Constitution loses (which hasn't lost anybody an election yet).