Missing Billy Glad already Rabbikitty? :)

I think you just made George Orwell's day.

Freedom = slavery, I guess.

FDR, 1932.

I repeat my question.

Any positions that Obama might take that would sway your Undying Support for The One?

As for "hard thinking", the analysis is out there. Greenwald, Digby, David Kris, Ryan Singel, Mark Klein, and lots more have done more thorough analyses. You obviously have no desire to do any of that hard... reading. Nor do you care to describe where exactly any of the above-mentioned folks are, you know, wrong about the FISA abomination or those who support it. I know, that stuff is hard, and interferes too much with man-cruses on The One. I know. Reading is hard. Take it slow; we'll wait.

Let's start, though, with something fairly... basic.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess since the Framers didn't know from electrons, fiber optics, and disk drives, then scooping up Internet traffic, vacuum-cleaner style, and keeping it for later data mining is just fine. They couldn't possibly have meant that sort of thing.

Marty Lederman:

We've invited David Kris to publish some posts explaining the new FISA bill. Check out his first two posts, just below David Luban's important Commander in Chief post. David K. was Associate Deputy Attorney General in charge of national security issues from 2000 to 2003, and before that he was in the Criminal Appellate section of the Criminal Division. He was widely regarded as one of the very best lawyers in the Department -- and became one of the most trusted, most well-respected authorities in the Department on criminal law and electronic surveillance issues once he moved on to the DAG's Office. As I've written here before, he's extremely thorough, careful, and impartial. We're thrilled to have his input here.

David's posts have prompted me to think about what might be the most important questions the new law will raise. There is a general sense out there that this new law gives the government substantially more powers to surveille communications of U.S. persons -- perhaps in ways that implicate the Fourth Amendment -- but there is, thus far, very little understanding of how that might be so, and how the new surveillance regime will differ from the one in place from 1978 to 2001.

David has begun to answer some of the more important questions. The answers to others remain hidden in the shadows and the vagaries of the law -- and some might never become public. But I think that the answers must be at the heart of any serious assessment of what Jack calls the "New Surveillance State" under which we will be governed very soon. I would be very grateful to David and other readers and bloggers -- and perhaps even the Congress! -- if they can provide further insight into what those answers might be. [This reminds me: The most troubling thing of all about the new statute is probably that virtually no one outside the executive branch has the slightest idea what it authorizes, or how, exactly it will work in practice. Folks such as David and I can provide our best guesses, but this opaque legislative process shares nothing in common with the extensive, transparent debate that occurred during the three years that FISA was under consideration. ...

But in any event, let's start with the key questions, below the fold . . .

QUESTION ONE: Why has the Administration been so desperate to "modernize" or to circumvent FISA, when its surveillance capabilities were already so extensive: (i) FISA doesn't regulate international-to-international phone calls at all, as long as a U.S. person in the U.S. is not a target; (ii) FISA doesn't regulate any communications intercepted overseas, even if they are international-to-domestic; (iii) to the extent FISA covers international-to-international e-mails intercepted from facilities in the U.S., everyone agrees it should not, and thus that would be an uncontroversial fix (at least assuming there's some way to identify such e-mails in the first instance); and, most importantly, (iv) the FISA Court must, and does, regularly authorize NSA surveillance whenever the agency can demonstrate probable cause that the target of its surveillance is a foreign power (including al Qaeda) or an agent thereof.

In light of all these significant authorities, why the desperate rush to legislate?

David provides the answer to this question, I think: The NSA wishes to be able to engage in what he calls "vacuum-cleaner" surveillance of U.S. facilities in circumstances where (i) there is no way of knowing in advance which calls are wholly international and (ii) there is no way of knowing in advance which of the targets of such vacuum-cleaner surveillance are foreign powers or their agents. The new law apparently will allow this sort of vacuum-cleaner surveillance by authorizing any and all surveillance "targeting . . . persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information." Under this new standard, there's no need that the surveillance have any connection to al Qaeda, or terrorism, or even to national security. The only substantial requirements are that someone overseas be a "target" and that one "significant purpose" of the surveillance be to acquire "foreign intelligence information," which is very broadly defined to include most anything that occurs overseas and in which the federal government might have an interest (including information necessary to protect against the full range of foreign threats to national security, including both international terrorism and espionage, and information with respect to a foreign power that is necessary to the national defense or foreign affairs).

This sort of "vacuum" surveillance could not be approved under the old FISA scheme, which requires either that the calls be wholly international, or that the interception be made overseas, or that the NSA demonstrate evidence in advance that the target is an agent of a foreign power. Under the new law, the NSA can engage in surveillance where none of those three criteria are met.

I'm giving up on tags, here's the link:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/key-questions-about-new-fisa-bill.html

Internal italics and other formatting have not been preserved. The bolding is my own emphasis. Read the original; the formatting and links are there. And more analysis. Sorry, but you're just going to have to... read a little.

Remember that the language of this bill was unveiled on a Thursday (after Hoyer's office denied repeatedly that a lot of the language that wound up in the bill was in the bill), and the House voted for it the next day. After, like, two hours of debate.

Yeah, real transparent, that. It's almost as if they didn't want people to know what was going on.

Now if you want to trust the Executive, including The One, with that kind of power that -- well, nobody knows exactly what it is, do they, because it's all still secret -- I find that... touching.

Me, I prefer a thorough understanding and debate on a bill that threatens to authorize such sweeping powers to monitor communications, including those of U.S. citizens. (You did read that little Fourth Amendment quote, didn't you?) That's a debate that hasn't happened, because the bill was rushed through after secret backroom negotiations, greased by plenty of telecom cash.

But hey, I guess you're fine with that. Like I said, I prefer to know about such sweeping authorizations of spying powers by my own government. I remember COINTELPRO, Hoover, Nixon and the rest. But if you don't, and prefer to trust The One, then have fun, comrade. Ignorance is Strength.

Sorry. My bad. I forgot that any criticism of The One or his positions means you're not going to vote for him or you're going to vote for McSame. By all means, we must all shut up whenever The One takes a position, because any dissent impedes his chances.

Thanks, comrade.

If it's me you're referring to as a "troll", I've been doing "real work" on this abomination for the last two weeks, which is about when the shit hit the fan with news of Hoyer's dealings.

And sites like dailykos, firedoglake, and digby's blog have been posting suggestions and discussion of real work long before you got round to it.

Observer2 is pulling the same shit downthread. Every time someone asks, "Okay, what line would Obama have to cross before to cause you to reconsider your Loyalty or even voice a little peep of dissent" you guys pull these kinds of evasions and ad hominems -- you certainly never answer this basic question.

Dismissing people as "trolls", and their dissent as "pointless raving", armchair psychoanalyzing a supposed "over-eager obsession" to be "cynical and negative about Obama" is the strategy of people who have run out of arguments.

Troll. Quit your pointless raving and go do some real work:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/time-to-get-to-work-on-f

I have been, fool.

A full nine days before you got round to actually thinking about working on this, I posted this:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/turning-up-the-heat-on-nationa.php

But you didn't pay attention then, did you? Only when it threatened the political prospects of your precious Leader did you decide you had to post something to distract attention from his sellout.

Fucking hypocrite.

"If the shoe fits. Anyone trying to bullshit us that *law* can in anyway undermine the Constitution is full of it."

Right, observer2. Of course! I mean, it's not like Congress has ever passed an unconstitutional statute before, now has it?

God, what fucking ignorance. Of law, of history, of politics.

Go ahead, just try taking this statute up before a Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito-Kennedy Supreme Court.

I'm sure that lovely gang of five will see to it that the Constitution is fully upheld.

If the foot fits.... eat it.