Glenn stated that Fisa is already the exclusive means to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, but actually (at least according to wikipedia) that only happened in 2006 with the passage of the Terrorist Surveillance Act... he made it sound like that was already a provision in the 1978 FISA bill. If I am wrong about this, someone please let me know and show me the evidence because I think Dubya can use his war powers to get around alot of the unconstitutional actions because FISA has NOT BEEN the exclusive provision to all warantless spying until 2006.

I fully support the Strangbedfellow coalition and its goals. IMHO we should also punish the companies that participated in the lawlessness, and then bought immunity, by boycotting them. A message needs to be sent to these companies that violated thier customers privacy and our countries laws. Just as you suggest that the folks in Washington need to know that there are consequences to be paid for these types of bills, so should these companies.

I have a brilliant idea (I think) for the FIZA awareness campaign.

I need help from an animator and a constitutional historian.

Anybody?

(In a rush at the moment. Will explain more later.)

You hit it right out of the park.

The Dems are involved in these illegalities right up to their eyeballs.

Why do you think Rockefellow led the charge? The leader of the Intelligence Committee since 2001, of course he knew everything that was happening. And he was a good little boy and kept quiet.

Anyway, that's not important now.

How do I go about getting Obama elected and where can I give some $$$$ to my favorite Dems?

When? After years of reading comments by Salon readers who preach about being revolutionaries and Marxists from the comfort of their laptops.

Point being that Americans only think they are special. They are not. Your perceived freedoms are little more than anomalies. All over world including all those chi-chi western European countries everyone worships, the notion that 'state security' would ever need to get permission to spy on people is ludicrous. In the UK they can detain people, anyone, w/o charge for 6 weeks. And the EU Parliament is considering passing a bill to extend that to 18 MONTHS. In France and Germany the state police don't need warrants in fact the French security services have written into their charter phrases like "Industrial Espionage". In most countries the phone companies share everything with the government. In some cases they ARE the government. Sweden just passed a FISA type law even more open ended than ours. So has Australia.

Again Americans think they're special, they are not. There is no privacy, there are no protections. And sorry to say, yelling about UNinventing something is a complete waste of time.

I love you Glenn Greenwald but here's the problem with your premise: Did "The Democrats" decide to bow to Bush's demands? No. Actually just SOME Democrats made that decision. Did they do it to avoid "looking weak"? I don't know, and I don't think you do either. Unfortunately, its entirely possible they actually decided it wasn't a bad bill. Unlike the Republican party (see Arlen Spector) Democrats often vote against the party line. Sometimes for craven political reasons, other times because of thier actual opinions. Which was it in this case? Can you support the contention that "The Democrats" decided to cave on this in order to not look weak? Or is that just the standard assumption when too many Democratic senators vote with Republicans?

I can't excuse the Democratic senators who voted for this bill, but I don't know if we can blame the whole party for it. We should be angry at the media - and Americans in general - for paying so little attention and not especially caring.

If you actually believe that you have no choice but to vote for one party's candidate only, one questions whether you are living in a functioning democracy.

There are several repressive and/or undemocratic regimes under which people take the time and trouble to vote, even though they effectively have no choice in terms of who or which party to vote for, but they do so anyway...and hope for the best.

This is what dems do...run to the republican side on all but the most trivial of issues. There is n opposition party just the money party.

The constitution and the rule of law have become virtually meaningless to those who can afford to live above it. Little Hitlers must be destroyed wherever they are found. Nearly our entire government needs to be replaced. The America we knew is dead. The so called terrorists have already won..."look at what we made America do to itself" is the terrorist motto.

Our congress has made a farce of our democracy. It's members are bought and sold at will.

I worked hard to get "Progressive" Senator Claire McCaskill D-MO elected to the senate because she claimed she would change how government does business and make a difference. She has voted identical to Senator Kit Bond R-MO on all the issues. Here she is campaigning for Obama...WHY? Unless he too will vote just like Bond. I stopped believing anything they sat and they McCaskill took down her contact web site because she has stopped listening. This is the change you can believe in...single party rule...the money party... with it's two faces.

Sad to say, but this bill (along with his plan to continue giving tax money to "faith based" groups) really made me lose faith in Obama and realize that he is just another politician pandering to GWB. At least Hillary Clinton (who I didn't like but maybe should reconsider that in hindsight) voted "no" on this disastrous piece of legislation.

I mean, @Electro Robot - er, @Robot2 - uh, @Robot3? - wait, it's "James T. Kirk" now, isn't it? Damn, son, you've got more noms de guerre than Lev Bronstein!

Anyway:"Look, practically speaking most of the countries in the world routinely spy on their citizens with no legal restraint at all. You're always saying we're the worst of the worst. So there you have it."

So you're saying, "Everything is everything?" When did you become such a moral relativist?