Is Obama Selling Out on FISA bill?

Is Obama being a shrewd pol or selling out civil liberties?

That's the question raised by Glenn Greenwald's tough new column taking Obama to task for supporting the bogus "compromise" bill condemned by the ACLU, the New York Times and most of the liberal blogosphere.
Greenwald takes on his fellow bloggers as well:

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt -- who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers -- condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.

This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

Moveon.org is also launching an email campaign urging Obama to keep his word on supporting a filibuster to block telecom immunity:

Dear MoveOn member:

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.

These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.

Supporters of today's deal say it doesn't guarantee immunityâ€"it just kicks the issue to a court to decide. But that's deceptive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:
"It gives [Bush's] attorney general the power to decide if cases against telecommunications companies will proceed. The AG only has to certify to the FISA court that the company didn't spy or did so with a permission slip from the president. A note from the president is not a legal defense. Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a 'permission slip' from the president is not court review."5

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group working with the ACLU to hold these companies accountable, adds, "whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity for phone companies that broke the law is anything but a compromise...no matter how they spin it, this is still immunity, period."6

President Bush and the phone companies know that the facts are against them. A judge appointed by President Bush's father already wrote one opinion finding that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."7

But we'll never know how far their illegal actions went unless we fight back now. Can you tell Barack Obama you're counting on him to keep his word and block any compromise that gives immunity to lawbreaking phone companies? Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.

Thanks for all you do,
â€"Nita, Adam G., Patrick, Ilyse, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, June 21, 2008

Sources:

1. "George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 19, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html
2. "Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the FISA Deal," Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, June 19, 2008
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm
3. "Obama Backing FISA 'Compromise," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, June 20, 2008
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php

4. "Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, October 24, 2007
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
5. "Facts on the Senator Kit Bond's (R-Mo.) FISA Proposal," June 13, 2008
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35652res20080613.html
6. "Prepared Statement of Eff Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston on Immunity 'Compromise,'" Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 18, 2008
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_bankston.pdf
7. "Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 17, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/hoyer/index.html

There's nothing significant for Obama to gain in the general election if he ends up going along with the bill, and much to lose in terms of his reputation for integrity and keeping his word, so it's important to keep pressure on him to oppose the new bill, especially if it contains any telecom-favoring provision.

UPDATE: Here's Obama's rationalization for supporting the current bill, while claiming he'll work to strip it of the telecom immunity provision. What's not clear in this statement or some of the blog commentary is what he'll do regarding the measure if the telecom provision stays in. Some highlights:

It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

Unfortunately, though, the thrust of his comments is that he will support the bill as written, even though he'll support -- how, he doesn't say -- efforts to remove the telecom provision, perhaps after it's already become law:

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Sadly, we expected more from Obama than this position on critical civil liberties legislation. That's why it's important to call his campaign to urge him to follow up on his promise to back a filibuster against the telecom immunity provision. Obama's presidential campaign phone: [phone]. Let him know you'd like him to stand up against the Bush administration on this issue, showing the sort of strength that can resonate with voters in the general election.

Comments

[tommybones]

The Pragmatist Chronicles:

2006 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! We need to capture the House and Senate! Then you'll see some accountability!"

2008 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! Stop demanding for accountability! We need to capture the White House! Then you'll see some "change" and accountability!"

2010 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! I know the Democratically controlled Congress AND White House have ignored your issues, but we need to focus on the mid-term elections! When we gain EVEN MORE seats, you'll see real progress!"

2012 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! I know the democratically controlled Congress and White House have ignored your issues, but our priority MUST be about keeping the White House! Once we maintain the Executive and Legislative branches, then we can focus on real progress!"

And on and on and on....

[speakingtruth2power]

The solution to the huge problem we face in creating change is to elect a large enough

democratic majority that we can afford to get rid of the Blue Dog enablers like Steny Hoyer.

[AbbieXHoffman]

There is no reason he can't vote no and protect our rights of privacy and keep the power to sue in the hands of the people (civil) not JUST the goverment (criminal).


This ridiculous excuse that he is going to try to fillibuster it or change it when he's president is such a slap in the face to the public. Obama--you have the optino to vote NO. take a stand!

There is a lot more wrong with this bill than the immunity (which taking out the right of citizens to sue in civil cases is so frightening as trial actions taking by citizens are last method of checks when the all three branches of the goverment fails). It allows the goverment to mass wiretap w/o individual warrants and allows them to continue to do this even after the courts don't grant a warrant. THAT is what is not getting press.

[starboymikey]

What a bunch of ego-driven babies you guys are.

Go ahead and buy into Ralph Nader's line again: "There's no difference between Republicans and Democrats." What did that get you in 2000? Do you really believe that things would not have been different if Gore had been president?

Do you not realize how critical this election is? Do you really not understand what will happen if John McCain is elected president thanks to your vindictiveness? You think FISA is bad? Well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I don't really know why Obama decided to support this bill, but I can see how he might be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Vote no and the neo-Cons wave the flag and say he's soft on terrorism. Vote yes, and the progressives howl "traitor."

So go ahead go ahead and play right into the neo-Cons hands on this one. You say that Obama is just another crafty politician? I say crafty, yes, but "just" no. That he can think like a politician is not necessarily bad. In fact, given the reality of politics in this country, this type of thinking is a survival skill, and no candidate who lacks it has a chance of winning, given the fact of people like Karl Rove, who are masters of political calculation. I for one am glad that Obama is willing to fight fire with fire, even if it makes him less than ideologically pure.

[Kahni]

You do not defeat an enemy by becoming the enemy. You defeat an enemy by understanding the enemy and acting accordingly. The neo's have been arguing for decades that we can only defeat our rivals by doing all the things we accuse the of: torture, rigging, etc. Now we are supposed to follow that path?

Forget it. Makes no sense. What is the point to opposing something we have to become to defeat?

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Critical, how? It's obvious Obama and McCain will do whatever the corporatists tell them to.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Go ahead and buy into Ralph Nader's line again: "There's no difference between Republicans and Democrats." What did that get you in 2000? "

Pelosi.

[CitizenFace]

You call this crafty? Rove would call it amateur.

A "crafty" politician would find a way to navigate through this issue in a manner consistent with his or her principles without allowing the narrative to be controlled by his opponents. An even craftier politican would be able to do what's right AND control the narrative to the detriment of his opponents.

[tbone99]

There are PLENTY of Repugs and especially Independents against this bill- as well. its not like it's only a liberal cause.This may be the deciding factor for many Independents in candidate selection.

[redstatebluedude]

The Obamaniacs have just been made absolute fools by the object of their obsession. Someone please tell me how this is not EXACTLY the type of behavior these people have been crucifying Hillary for over the past six months. Yeah, BO will change EVERYTHING right?

[hominidx]

Well, it seems like lots of "Obamaniacs" are questioning this, but it's more important to call names than, say, reason with people, isn't it?

[Kahni]

Somewhere in there, Red, you have some sort of point, I think...

You might want to look at at least some of the posts here. I think you will find that those you call "Obamaniacs" are acting consistently by criticizing O the same way they did H. Are you saying they have some sort of obligation to support O even when he is wrong?

Whether O is different from H and others will be decided by what he does about the reactions you see here. Frankly, I am not holding out hope, but your observations are, at best, not useful.

[FreedomFries]

To be fair to Obama, he did say "Yes we can" and not "Yes we will."

[onelife1]

Yes the DEMS have sold us out.
Every one of them Obama inculded.
We have one party in this country and that is the Corporate party.

sad and hopeless.
mention fairness and its "off the table"

[Kahni]

A number of my left-leaning -- and outright left -- friends have been saying they have a "creepy feeling" about O. I insisted they were, at best, being paranoid. No longer. This action puts me deep into "creepy feeing." The closer O gets to power, the more facile his rationalizations for status quo (if one can call a steady slide into restricted freedoms a status quo).

Once again we have the Dems, driven by a willingness to buy a mythical repub vote with ten real dem votes. Once again, they are doing everything they can to lose to a candidate that has nothing to offer.

Attention Big O handlers: wake up! Eiither he gets his head out, or he can vote for himself.

[ForwardtoYesterday]

Is this one single issue really enough to sway you away from everything else? Really?

Obama never ran as a progressive wet dream. He is not Dennis Kucinich and he is not the preferrred candidate of purity trolls. He is simply the best candidate we were ever likely to get.

If you hold him to these standards, then I guarantee that you would also have voted against every President we've ever had, including Lincoln and FDR -- our two best Presidents but also ones who did things that would definitely not pass muster with the ACLU. Really bad things, in fact.

If you're looking for perfection, my friend, I feel sorry for you. But if letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is you're way, then enjoy yourself.

[CitizenFace]

See, it's these sort of sentiments that I just don't understand. You're aware that this bill, this "one single issue," is being viewed as an assault on the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, yes?

So... when did a politician willing to defend the Constitution become labeled a "progressive wet dream"? Did I miss something?

Is Kucinich to be lauded as the "preferred candidate of purity trolls" because he is opposed to the annhialation of our rights? When did this happen?

"These standards" would have led me to vote "against every President we've ever had, including Lincoln? Was the standard of defending the Constitution such a high bar even in the 1860s??

Please answer. Did I miss some crucial news somewhere in the past few years? Was there another terrorist attack against our country that I hadn't heard about? When, why, how did the Constitution become so freekin' expendable???

[TXfemmom]

I don't care what he says, AGREEING TO THAT BILL IS A CAPITULATION AND HE FLUNKED HIS FIRST BIG TEST. If he isn't brave enough to say NO TO THAT BILL UNLESS THE IMMUNITY IS NOT THERE, then how is he going to be brave enough to do what he says?

I don't like the fact that he has flunked a major test before the votes are cast at the convention.

[Marcospinelli]

The appeal of O.b.a.m.a. has been his articulateness, his ability to reach people with words in a way that no Democrat has been able to do since the 1960s. But as a writer, I know that you have to feel it and believe it before you can come up with a sincere and convincing argument that will move people to your way of thinking. Amnesty is only part of the problem with this bill. The fact that O.b.a.m.a. doesn't see that or can't be bothered explaining it to people is troublesome.

FISA, which is unConstitutional enough, is already in place and doing what B.u.s.h claims is necessary to fight his "war on terror". This bill extends the power of the Executive branch, and institutionalizes (legalizes) "no oversight" by other branches.

We, the People can't just vote for someone, particularly someone as vague and general as O.b.a.m.a, and then get back to our lives thinking he'll watch out for our interests. Others with counter interests have planted themselves next to him and work him 24/7.

Defeating this bill is just one step. Getting DLCers out of power (and enough with the talk of Sam N.u.n.n. as VP, or H.i.l.l.a.r.y, or any pol who had endorsed her) is what we really need to be doing.

[jayelo]

Why is this a surprise?????????????????????
LOOK UP HIS RECORD
And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

[realistxxx]

Forrest and trees.

The Telecom/FISA bill is bad but it is just one part of a larger whole.

The entire theme of the B.ush admin is the Unitary Executive. Gitmo, renditioning, torture, enemy combatants, domestic spying, wars of choice, signing statements, executive privilege, ignoring supoenas etc. etc. all are designed to rollback the post Watergate reforms.

The dems and 0bama cannot change this dangerous course with one vote, fillibuster or amendment. It can only be done by sweeping the House and Senate and electing a Dem president.

Focusing on this one example from seven years of filth is self defeating. The American public is not paying attention so fighting an "anti-turrism" bill will just give the Repukes another club to bludgeon them with until November.

Unfortunately, low info voters vote.

[Kahni]

"Unfortunately, low info voters vote."

Ok, we get that you're voting. No need to boast.

Every policy is done, not just one law at a time, but one vote at a time. O is expected to lead by example. He has promised he will. This is a terrible example: expediency and "trust me" is much of what got us into all these messes in the first place. If O wants our trust, he has to earn it -- one vote at a time.

[realistxxx]

ad hominem attacks... hmm another right wing tactic. I guess extremes do meet.

The funny thing is the right always wins and yet you 1-percenters seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on a regular basis.

No wonder you guys are so bitter.

[OliverTwist]

I am not going to vote for a candidate who votes against my interests on the basis that they are just being a clever appeaser or a clever liar and really intend to support my interests some day in the future after they win.

[hominidx]

There is not a single politician - or person - who will meet every interest you have.

[ddharder]

Forest: the Constitution.

The Trees: Winning the election.

[tommybones]

Exactly.

[realistxxx]

Typical absolutist tactic: If someone disagrees with you on a complex issue imply they are against something simple and fundamental (e.g. The Constitution).

Often employed by the right to undercut nuanced discussions, now I see it as an equally common tactic of the progressives as they knee-jerk their way through this world.

SCOTUS interprets the constitutionality of laws and those that win the election for president get to appoint new justices. Did you miss the 5-4 vote on Habeus Corpus... frighteningly narrow if you ask me?

Did you not know that before FISA domestic spying in the interest of National Defense was rampant and abused? Did you know that FISA is a rubber stamp?

It sucks but this bill is just one assault on our civil liberties and not even that large given the history of National Security and constitutional assault. A complete change in direction is needed and we as Americans have the opportunity to do this through elections.

Alternatively, you could see if you could get Dennis Kucinich elected president and Howard Zinn could be his running mate, then all of our problems would be solved in one fell swoop.

Let me know how that works out for ya. K?

[Michale32086]

I ask people to think about this thing logically and rationally.

And what do they come up with??

"The GOP is planning a home grown terrorist attack that is going to kill BILLIONS and that is why Obama is "playing along"..."

Yea, that's rational.. :^/

Geee, it sure would be interesting to see how you people are when you are hysterical and irrational...

Michale.....

[Kahni]

"it sure would be interesting to see how you people are"

It would be interesting to see how your arguments would be if you didn't cherry-pick one emotional burst out of a few hundred posts.

[Michale32086]

Actually, I can point to hundreds of posts on this subject that are so out in left field as to be in a different galaxy..

There are four possibilities as to why Obama and all the other Dems are supporting this measure...

1. Due to previous illegal eavesdropping, the Bush administration have got something to hold over the Democrats.

2. There is new evidence of clear and present dangers facing this country that requires these new measures. Democrats have been made privy to this new information.

3. Democrats are expecting big wins this election, including the White House and plan on using these new super powers to get even with the GOP..

4. Democrats are complicit in earlier acts of illegal eavesdropping and fear public disclosure of said complicity. Kinda a watered down version of #1..

Out of those 4 possibilities which is the most logical and rational??

Michale.....

[Marcospinelli]

When are democrats going to get a real Democrat fighting for us?

This election has always been a fight on two fronts: Against the Republicans and against the DLC within the Democratic Party. Both Ob'ama and H'illary are DLC: They ain't a friend to We, the People. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

The only difference between H'illary and Ob'ama is that you can't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Ob'ama's more like B'ush - He keeps it all vague and general, leaving you plenty of room to take it to mean whatever you like.

In the last two months of the primaries, as H'illary moved left by pandering to the "hard-working white people" ("a summer vacation from gas taxes") and Ob'ama didn't move an inch, We, the People were screwed. Majorly. No matter which one of them got the nomination, this was the closest to the left they were ever going to get. Come the general election campaign, the nominee would be tacking to the right to get the Republican&Independent votes.

Ob'ama's interest is in making deals, not looking out for the interests of We, the People. We, the People have a tendency to want to get back to our lives so we put people in office who we think will do our bidding. But unless we remain alert, breathing down their necks, they won't.

We have much more work to do, to get the DLC out of the Democratic Party.

[Binea]

REVOLUTION MARCH- The Fight Continues...
The next step in continuing the revolution is here. On July 12, 2008, more than 20,000 citizens will gather in D.C. to tell the government that its reign is over. This is We The People 2.0, this is the Revolution March! Together, you and I will begin to take this country back from the hands of corrupt power.
Speakers include Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Michael Scheuer, Tom Woods, Naomi Wolfe, Bob Schulz, and G. Edward Griffin, among numerous others. At 9:30 AM, we will assemble at the northeast quadrant of the Washington Monument, and proceed to march down Constitution Avenue, toward Capitol Hill. The west side of Capitol Hill will be where everyone assembles for the rally, which will start around 11:00 AM. The speakers, musical guest, and entertainers will then proceed to give their ideas, speaking on the Constitution, the Federal Reserve, the NAU, and terrorism. The entire week preceding the march we will have seminars on lobbying your congressional office, and encourage attendee's to visit their congressman's office to inform them that we are here to stay. The day after, CatHerder Project will have a symposium of freedom-oriented events that will be educational and useful for all.
This can be done! Visit http://www.revolutionmarch.com/travel.aspx to find everything we have available, or contact Susan Wolfe for more information.

[ddharder]

Sounds nice. Unfortunatily it will just be marginalized.

Well, 20K is actually a small margin.

I support the message here, but have zero hope it will ever be heard or taken seriously.

[zjr909]

It really doesn't matter if Obama has a strategy or not. All that matters is that, if he votes in favor of this FISA bill, he thereby votes to gut the 4th amendment to the constitution. I'm sorry, but no strategy can make up for the loss. Likewise, so what if he's privy to classified briefings? This is not about terrorism - it's about the constitution. The law will pass whether he supports it or not; but if he doesn't support it, we'd have a better chance of believing him when he says he'll "monitor" it if elected. But if he supports it, his assurances that he won't abuse it aren't worth the lovely words he frames that assurance with.

[antworks]

Nicely said, zjr909! I can't stand what these criminal Bush Republicans have done to this country and the law of the land (the constitution). But, if Mr. Obama goes along with passage of this bill, he will have demonstrated to me that he may be part of the problem and not part of the solution! Here's the real bad part, if the above scenario plays out. I'd never vote Republican. The country is in a mess. We need change in the whitehouse. So, what do you do if Mr. Obama continues to support immunity for the telecoms and a revision of FISA? Frankly, I don't know. Right now, all I can do is shake my head at these dudes on capital hill. It seems to get more preposterous each day. No one wants to stand up to these wacko Bush people. It's simply crazy, almost like some kind of EVIL inhabits the whitehouse or something and they're afraid to challenge them.