I've read in the media that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 permits warrantless surveillance by allowing the FISC to sign off on "program warrants" - a warrant that describes how a program is implemented, instead of a warrant targeting a specific individual.

I've tried reading HR 6304 to find the specific text which permits program/blanket/basket warrants, but I haven't been able to find it. I've linked the full text of the bill in my sig.

Has anyone else had any luck finding which provision specifically provides for (what amounts to) warrantless surveillance?

"Jane Mayer: ... let me tell you about a conversation I had with one of your senators, Chuck Schumer. When I asked him why, given his safe seat, and ostensible concern for civil liberties, he didn't speak out more against the Bush Administration's detention and interrogation programs, he said in essence that voters don't care about these issues. So, he said, he wasn't going to talk about them."

There's only one error in this column:

Turley: ...they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program ...

In the case of Jane Harman, that isn't true. On a Meet The Press program years ago, she admitted that she had received the NSA report on unwarranted wiretaps, but had not read it.

The proper term for this stance is "willful ignorance" or "gross indifference" to the Bill of Rights. I only wish it were possible to prosecute legislators for gross violations of their oath of office: "to uphold and defend the Constitution."

Sadly, it is not.

This is it. Pelosi and all the top dems (and who knows how many more) have been complicit in most of the crimes of the bush regime since 9-11! Although there has been steadily increasing evidence of this, the conclusion is now unavoidable! This, finally, is the fundamental reason that they caved on cheney's FISA-gutting legislation - NOT for any concern over terrorism, NOT primarily because they were bribed by the telecons, NOT because it is a political strategy! But because they have been complicit all along in treason, high crimes, and criminal offenses! And finally we KNOW, what I suspected all along, the explanation for Pelosi's incomprehensible 'Impeachment is off the table!' statement in summer, 2006 - even before the 2006 mid-terms. And it finally explains why she disingenuously, infuriatingly, and absurdly insisted upon interpreting the reason the dems were handed power in Nov 2006 as a desire by the american people to see 'an end to partisan bickering' instead of what it was - which was a mandate to hold the criminal bush regime accountable and stop and reverse every one of their insane policies. Pelosi is guilty of treason and should be impeached along with the rest of them.

This is freaking huge!

Aych

Also, Aych, when someone takes on some famous character's name like 'Tiberious' and I make fun of him by changing it to Tibby, that's funny and clever. Or when someone wants to be thought of as the head of or a member of the GOP by calling themselves Elephantman, and I change it to Elephantdung, that's funny and clever. When someone has a legitimate name of Kitt (whether you are certain that is their name of not) and you change it to Kitty, that's not the least bit funny or clever, that's just stupid.

-- Kitt

I have a feeling that the two of you have past issues, so I'll try to stay out of it. However, I can not believe the above rationalization for your statements.

As I understand you, "kitt" as in Kitt Carson or as in Ms. Kitty on the old TV show are names that must not be toyed with while screen names of people whose posts are objectionably (and they are, no doubt about that) may be made fun of at whim --- and one should be proud to do so.

I am having difficulty finding balance in that. I suppose I am not sufficiently enlightened and can not discern the inner mystery of it all. My head now hurts, so I will stop worrying about it.

Oh well, I do hope the name calling will be light for the next few days as Glenn is posting on damn important topics that I hope bring many new readers to his blog posts, and perhaps many that will read here in the comments section also.

WaPo:

"Olympia, Wash.: I'm surprised the new Democratic majority in Congress hasn't pursued investigation of this entire mess more actively. Do you think we'll see more concerted investigation by Congress after we have a new Administration in January?

Jane Mayer: It depends who wins - and with what size majority.

It also depends if we continue to have no more attacks."

The only thing that will assuage your trembling little heart is knowledge. A lot more knowledge than you'll ever get here.

Sh**ter knows. He asks for information that's been given to him already more than once, ignores it, and then says that no one can answer his questions. How's that for assiduously avoiding any hint of knowledge?

Cheers,

His business is based on selling fear. The more fear the better. It's what brings in readers, clicks and then advertisers. In short honey, it's all about the money.

You misspelled "Cheney, Rove, and Dubya".

Cheers,

And here is our Congress hard at work. Naturally, it's a Democrat speaking up for why Chinese-made flags should only be flown at certain places. Well, I know THAT issue was at the top of my list of political concerns:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/lawmakers-target-chinese-made-flags/20080715063309990001

So, okay. I get it. Congress is capable of either passing draconian legislation or else sitting on their butts, pontificating about where flags that get flown are made.

This and of course the fact that the entire country has lost its sense of humor or is too stupid to understand irony via the New Yorker cover.

Great week for democracy. And um the American intellect...

So...let's also go after anyone who sanctioned any war from the last 70 years.

Crap like this just shows you have nothing to contribute.

At least nothing we couldn't already get from the White House.