http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1044160,CST-EDT-open08x.article#

All of a sudden, you think the hack Lanny Davis is the great expert on FISA?

Just make sure nobody criticizes Obama. Bring in anyone you can. Including Lanny Davis who lied his way through the primary campaign.

Needless to say, his empty assertions about "strict court supervision" and all the rest, the same talking points pushed by Pelosi and Hoyer and Rockefeller and Obama, are wrong.

When it comes to judicial oversight of domestic-to-foreign calls, the legislation the House passed last month is an unambiguous victory for the White House and a defeat for civil libertarians. The legislation establishes a new procedure whereby the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can sign off on "authorizations" of surveillance programs "targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The government is required to submit a "certification" to the FISA court describing the surveillance plan and the "minimization" procedures that will be used to avoid intercepting too many communications of American citizens. However, the government is not required to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur. The specific eavesdropping targets will be at the NSA's discretion and unreviewed by a judge. Moreover, the judge's review of the government's "certification" is much more limited than the scrutiny now given to FISA applications. The judge is permitted only to confirm that the certification "contains all the required elements," that the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to target foreigners, and that minimization procedures have been established.

Crucially, there appears to be no limit to the breadth of "authorizations" the government might issue. So, for example, a single "authorization" might cover the interception of all international traffic passing through AT&T's San Francisco facility, with complex software algorithms deciding which communications are retained for the examination of human analysts. Without a list of specific targets, and without a background in computer programming, a judge is unlikely to be able to evaluate whether such software is properly "targeted" at foreigners.

Lots more at the linked article.

But some are just impervious to actual analysis and just prefer to repeat the talking points.

I am okay with Obama's FISA vote.

Now, Lanny Davis is probably one of the most unappealing weesils around, but I think he is right on this one.

I recall Obama saying "I will restore the Constitution when I am POTUS."
Why do I believe it? Because he said he would and I believe him.

Obama08&12

==A number of lawyers have posted long and detailed explanations why both you and your horribly uniformed blogger are wrong about this legislation as well as the underlying legal factors behind it.==

Really? Like who? Obama sycophants? Lanny Davis?

It is true, those of us who pointed out the obvious bad things about this bill have been attacked by hack-sounding lawyers, that added no relevant facts to the debate, but did attempt to make it sound that "it has always been dat way".

The bill's provisions for warantless "sweep"-type fishing expeditions of American's communications with only a "certificaton" that the main "target" is overseas are well known by now. The breadth and bandwidth of these sweeps is unrestricted by the new legislation and unreviewed by the judge. There is no probably cause and no actual list of things to surveil, as required by the 4th amendment. So yes, this bill does in fact eviscerate the 4th amendment. But we have to remember, that in order to be concerned about the loss of freedom of thought, one has to have thought whose freedom they deem worthy of protection. Many people, including a number of posters on liberal blogs, apparently do not consider themselves to be in that category.

I am sorry you haven't been paying attention.