And neither will the Democratic Leadership.

Laws with no consequences are meaningless. They're just suggestions. And nothing ensures future lawbreaking more then announcing that the response to government lawbreaking will be to protect the lawbreakers and then legalize what they did. That's why this new law does the opposite of what its apologists claim -- it incentivizes future lawbreaking by making clear that nothing will happen to political officials who break the law.

-- GlennGreenwald

And yet you won't touch impeachment with a ten foot pole. You won't write about it. You won't use your new coalition and money to somehow support it. You ignore Kucinich and people like Sheehan.

It's all about what's possible correct? And what is possible is electing a few more dems and Obama so that they can what? Police themselves? I don't know about anybody else but, given recent history, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Thanks for telling us about Gina Gray. Having served as an Air Force public affairs officer for 28 years, the mistreatment of her is both disgusting and sad. When top leaders are as sick and demented as Cheney and Bush are, most everyone below them either becomes ill and loses their soul or they opt out. Gina had the guts to do neither and hold to her integrity and principles. Military members like Gina who have this kind of courage, are the real heroes.

And while this doesn't change the fact that this law does indeed help us fight the terrorists,

You wanna substantiate that?

My that does sound bad- but clearly also useful for uncovering terrorist conspiracies.

Which are everywhere, of course. Since the 9-11 fiasco, no "terrorist conspiracy" has so much as broken a window in the US. Why are you so convinced there are "terrorist conspiracies" all over? And please, no canards about right-wing or abortion terrorists. You know, I know and we all know, we are talking about "fanatical Muslim" terrorists.

You do check under the bed at night, right? Don't forget the closet!

My that does sound bad- but clearly also useful for uncovering terrorist conspiracies. My guess is there is some way to reconcile the two that relies heavily on appropriate regular disclosure across a checked and balanced set of government agencies, perhaps together with unscheduled audits with teeth, but clearly that was not accomplished by a bill that is very lazy in that respect (where this oversight is neither appropriately specific or conceivably sufficiently comprehensive).

But let's get down to brass tacks here. What are we concerned about? The abuse of these new powers by federal authorities, in particular by the President/executive branch, to such an extent as to jeopardize (what remains of) our system of representative democracy. HOWEVER, your Matlab example (incidentally, the investment community is also a big consumer of the package), while troubling, does not demonstrate that this is happening or has happened. Pointing it out then is IMO conflating the due process issue with this one.

The appropriate argument of course is that we cannot place blind (unverified) trust in our leaders to act on our behalf where our interests and theirs diverge, where their interests and any semblance of morality diverge, (i.e. we can't assume they wouldn't sell their mother for a song), or even where their sanity must be relied upon. That we cannot do so both for self-evident reasons and as borne out by the history of leaders who were vested with such powers- our own history and others (indeed everyone's). And that this very principle and cautionary tale was one around which our founding fathers philosophy was organized.

And while this doesn't change the fact that this law does indeed help us fight the terrorists, (and certainly doesn't remotely justify omitting this FACT in discussing the bill's merits), it also highlights how profoundly problematic is the requisite that we place blinder deeper trust in our leaders. And the fact that this ramification of the bill/law hasn't been even acknowledged, let alone defended by those that would advance its necessity points up how deeply corrupt this whole process was, and that doesn't even touch on the immunity clause. If there had really been appropriate dialogue about this, which there wasn't, there would have been far more sensible oversight provisions.

My point is, this argumentation is more effective to the extent it stays on message and doesn't conflate this issue with others, not to mention not overstate the case. I don't get the sense that we're maximizing effectiveness on that basis. On that last bit for example, at present, the data mining operations made easier under this bill are not easily exploited in the service of political interests, and certainly not without substantial risk. In particular, you don't need to sweep communications to identify political targets, you only need to do so to identify anonymous targets. So if this is all that this new law has done- and I can't say because I frankly don't know, but it seems as though this is what you are saying- than I find it less troubling than many of the rest of you seem to, and I therefore find Obama's rhetoric on the subject less offensive.

Of course, this is not to say I agree with either the bill or the rhetoric even without the ridiculous immunity provision. Because even if I'm right to think these tools cannot be abused now, (beyond perhaps trying to sweep up the Eliot Spitzer adversaries of this world, and otherwise influencing people and institutions at the margin), that does not imply they couldn't be in the future, in a different political climate, with even more corrupt and cowed media, etc. And there is nothing like a profound depression, deep unemployment or a run on your currency to yield massive opportunity to the worst demagogic would-be-autocrats out there, and change that climate on a dime. Something about formerly well off people on bread lines and in poor houses that makes them more receptive to edifying if highly irrational messages. And word that Fannie and Freddie are insolvent... That, of course, is another reason for vigilance cast aside by the establishment.

Long story short, I need to know more about this 'vast new wiretapping power'. Beyond new powers to perform electronic data mining to acquire targets, to surveil targets electronic communications, and beyond new powers for snooping on foreigners, what else does this update to FISA realistically permit the federal government to do to American citizens? Both contained similar minimization provisions, and similar requirements that the target must be reasonably believed to reside outside the US. What else is new?