Glenn, while I wholeheartedly agree with many of the points that you make in today's and previous posts, you frequently use overly strong and somewhat offensive language to make those points. For instance, in this post's update, you write the words "In a minimally rational world,". These words are unnecessary and could come across as condescending, particularly to those who would not agree with you. They are not part of what would be constructive criticism. While the words are understandable, to make more persuasive arguments I would suggest minimizing such asides and using words that are more commonly agreeable. While this could lead to possibly more droll and less entertaining to read language, it would do more to create a better understanding with those who you (and I) differ.

BTW, you are doing a fantastic job following and being active on this FISA bill issue. I read your blog daily (often hourly). I have pledged to contribute to the money bomb.

Glenn,

I have been curious for months now after watching this train-wreck of an administration unfold on this and couldn't think of a more insightful person to ask.

Is it possible that Bush/Cheney would amass all this unitary power only to hand it to a Democratic administration?

Hence, why fight so hard now to legalize this new FISA legislation unless only for legal cover and Telecom immunity.

We hear half serious thoughts of the governtment imposing martial law, delaying elections, at these times it would be very convenient to know everything to know about enemies, foreign and domestic. Senator Feingold implied this administration is involved in nefarious behavior...and that is what he HAPPENS to have been told, who knows outside his briefings.

You see the constitutional abuses piling up, this unquestioed unitary power unchecked by congress, Cheney hell bent on bombing Iran, Glenn, where are we heading? For a long time now, i feel as though i've been watching a story that you just know will have a tragic ending. What is your vision of our near future

Thanks, Joe

A Texan boy pours skim milk in a ten gallon hat.

Don't drink it. Drink Amish raw milk for bowels.

GOPS go to a outdoor drinking well faucet to sip.

Upon seeing a black widow spider? Call 9-1-1!

My e-mail has exactly 2000 unopened e-males.

Ask the NSA? It's shocks me. I dreamt. Vet sitting.

The vet was enjoying ice cream with a best friend.

What a forlorn gasp!

The `Nam vet was applying crude-oil to a wood leg.

huh? err. me shut up!

Call the moo cow vet!

Do you never tire of repeatedly demonstrating the you are an inveterate idiot by parroting inane talking points easily refuted by anyone w/ two functioning brain cells!?

Garner a little self-respect and STFU already.

Not often an M$M, Fox-induced campaign smear brings joy (see sig)

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1050794,CST-NWS-nuts11.article

Morning Edition, July 11, 2008

• Since Sept. 11, the number of spying warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has more than doubled, according to statistics the Justice Department releases each year.

At the same time, the number of criminal indictments against people associated with Islamist extremist groups has dropped by more than half, according to a recent study by the group Human Rights First.

Current and former officials at the FBI and the Justice Department say those two statistics demonstrate a shift in the way the government is addressing the challenge of terrorism. The officials say the pendulum is swinging from a model that favors criminal prosecutions to one that favors more intelligence gathering.

That intelligence does not necessarily culminate in an indictment. In many cases, these officials say, the government is relying on other ways of addressing terrorist plots besides indictments and trials.

Other ways mentioned include friendly visits, deportation ... I'm wondering about intimidation, threats, blacklists and 6-degrees-of-separation.

Apparently there's friction between the prosecution oriented "old" law enforcement FBI versus the "new" intelligence agency FBI. They call it a pendulum ... sounds like a throwback to McCarthy era FBI tactics.

Link on my name.

So glad those equally poorly-thought-out wars on drugs / child porn / sex slavery and whatever #@#$ else -- I forget -- relegated to backburner-ville

Glenn Greenwald

The law allows the NSA to listen to any of those communications -- telephone calls, emails, IMs - not just analyzing their data.

Oh really? I was listening for that in the podcast, and didn't hear it. One would think that would be foremost in the suit is it were actually a concern, no? Rather the words "mass aquisition" were repeated when talking about the "spying".

I have to presume that in talking about actual listening to conversations, you mean that if someone calls London, and the tap is IN London, Americans can be listened to, yes? When they are heard in London that is.

Well why not? Since when does a US agency need a warrant to have a tap in London? Isn't it true that taps in the US still need warrants? Isn't it true that you've been cloaking the real issues with hyperbole and rhetoric?

More importantly if the ACLU isn't going after taps in London why raise the specter of warrantless US taps by way of sloppy, and jargon loaded rhetoric? Tsk. Tsk. For those that don't like getting yanked around consult the following which outlines previous law most of which is still in force) and then go to the cite for changes. Like it or not, listening is a whole different activity than hearing.

* Under current law, there are four significant limits on FISA’s regulatory scope with respect to surveillance. First, the statute does not apply where all parties to a wire or radio communication are located abroad, even if they are Americans (U.S. persons), and even if the surveillance is conducted inside the United States.

* The second major limit in current FISA is that the statute does not apply where the surveillance target is located abroad and the surveillance occurs abroad.

* The third major limit is that current FISA does not apply to wire surveillance where the target is a foreigner, and the surveillance occurs abroad.

* Fourth and finally, current FISA does not apply to radio surveillance not targeting a U.S. person located in the United States where any party to the radio communication is outside the United States.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/guide-to-new-fisa-bill-part-iii.html

Since it's all so innocuous, would you mind recording all of your calls and emails and sending them to me? I'm asking seriously. I'd really like to listen in on that. It's no big deal - Amazon and the Sierra Club already do it, so why not let me? Please answer that. I really want to listen in on your calls and read your emails. Can I? -- GlennGreenwald

Gad, here you are mixing up domestic rules with crossborder rules, yet again. No wonder people get confused.

So you can wiretap without a warrant domestically? No? You mean our 4th Amendment protections are still up and protecting? Tell you what, if you get the technology and a warrant, have at it. Anything I want to keep secret, can easily be kept secret. I'm certainly not going to assume any cross border communication is privileged, nor would anyone else with a grain of situational awareness.