...be good and post your passwords, credit card information, etc here. There is absolutely nothing to worry - Thanks beforehand!

Was quite touching. Most political emails I get go instantly into the trash as they are full of fake outrage, breathless prose, pandering and begging.

Dodd's email actually felt like a real human being wrote it.

...not in the childish sense of spiritual enlightenment

...not in the foolish sense of finding something one loves to do, but love is not the excuse for not doing something

...not in the sense of a mentor

...not meaning emotional maturity

...nor civil conflict resolution

...but as it was intended - to satisfy avarice and dominance stated in the following manner

"We demand nothing less than the absolute right, without concequence, to take advantage of Americans in any manner we are aware of and hopefully eventually with more sophisticated methods that no one is currently aware of. This right must be paired a level of dominance necessary to protect the right. Voluntary submission derived from patriotic instincts and the belief in mutual respect are not powerful enough when set against the general population's awareness of how much it is held in contempt for not being us. The naive' notion that if American citizens sacrifice it is because "all" Americans are having to make sacrifices fills us with so much paranoia we have decided that only through pathological cruelty and dishonesty will we be able to maintain order."

"Our view is based on the well-reasoned concept that suckers are a natural resource that is renewable and created by god. What reason could there possibly be that there are so damn many of them with new ones being born everyday. We must begin screwing them as children for how else will they become hardened or numb to our intentions. God intended some of us to be predators and most everyone else to be suckers. We are free of guilt and responsibility, because suckers are the harvest of capitalism. This circumstance takes the illusion of an infinitely expanding market and makes it real and we are nothing if not reality based."

"Our hope is that the previous explanation makes needless submission easier to live with and more difficult to understand. Thank you for your attention. You shall carry on. Shall in this sense is understood as "will".

Per Lessig: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/07/the_immunity_hysteria.html

... The amendments to FISA were good. Getting a regime that requires the executive to obey the law is important. ... But I also think the FISA bill (excepting the immunity provision) was progress. ...

He defends this in the comments:

An executive can always ignore the law, Larry. But Congress can make it clearer that he is ignoring the law.

Yet another case of the FISA crazy-talk syndrome?

Haven't been able to go through all the comments, apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/11/01545/3460/430/549785

Feingold:

"I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure."

For clarity, I was reading section 104 of the 2008 amended law which amends 50 U.S.C. section 1804 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)

I listened to the podcast and I understand the ACLU's stand (I've been an on and off contributor when I can afford it, to the ACLU for decades.) Their position is the new law is too extreme and doesn't require the government to say who is the target, where the target is, and the manner of their surveillance.

You have to read the 1978 version of the law and the 2008 amended law to see where FISA stands today.

An application for electronic surveillance must have:

The identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;

A statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

A statement of the proposed minimization procedures;

A detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;

A certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate—

(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;

(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;

(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and

(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—

(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and

(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;

(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application;

(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and

(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.

This seems to answer the who, what when and how of the target of surveillance.

It is important to me that the Constitution is not violated. My biggest concern with the way the Bush administration conducted surveillance was that there was no oversight. There was nothing that prevented the government from going after its political enemies.

But I also see the need to for law enforcment to be able to act quickly on intelligence.

To my mind, Bush violated the existing FISA law. He should be impeached. I'm no lawyer but from a common sense point of view the biggest difference between this law and the previous law is that it gives telecoms retroactive immunity.

We can eneact laws until the cows come home but if the President is determined to violate the law, what the hell good are they? Especially when Congress refuses to use its powers of impeachment.

But if our remedy is to prevent Obama from taking office because of this vote and handing the election to McCain, I have to say you people are cutting off your noses to spite your face.