Robert Parry this week had some cogent analysis about "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) and the collection of "transactional data" for data mining purposes .

Here is more on the TIA concept, which was championed by old Reaganaut and five-time convicted felon John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame. Poindexter is currently serving on the board of BrightPlanet, a data mining company.

Booze Allen & Hamilton is a key contractor in pulling together the disparate threads of data collection and data mining to seek TIA kinds of solutions. Remember that DNI John Michael "Mike" McConnell was the Director of NSA from 1992 to 1996 and was a senior vice president at Booze Allen & Hamilton from 1996 until 2006.

Remember also that current DCI Michael Hayden was the Director of NSA from 1999 until 2005. As DIRNSA, Hayden was the key apparatchik who oversaw the conduct of the Bush Administration's original warrantless wiretapping program, though of course the Department of Justice and the FBI also were critical players.

The information science discipline of link analysis seeks ways to comb through massive data bases to discern connections among data entries and individual actors.

And now for the next step, political microtargeting. Here is a recent link relating to Mitt Romney's campaign. Karl Rove was a "pioneer" in deploying this technique to target voters, as this March, 2004 article from Newsweek reveals.

Is the pattern now beginning to emerge more clearly? Bush, his apparatchiks, the ever-credulous MSM, and a majority of senators and congressmen frame the issue as a simple one involving the electronic surveillance of the communications of "foreign terrorists," for such communications may at times happen to pass through U.S. communications switches or Internet routers. Who could possibly oppose intercepting and collecting communications to or from those evil "foreign terrorists?"

But how do you tell whether the specific phone call or the specific data transmission (e-mail, web-page download, banking transfer, credit card transaction, Amazon order, PayPal transaction, library book renewal, plane reservation, electronic tax payment, brokerage firm statement, political contribution, medical file, prescription request, packetized phone call) really came from or is going to a foreign recipient (terrorist, foreign national, or U.S. citizen living abroad)--unless you collect virtually everything passing through every telecommunications and Internet pipe? How can you filter on the massive data flow in real time to ensure that just the items of real intelligence interest are extracted?

If the massive data flows cannot be surgically filtered as they occur, what is the alternative? Perhaps the only solution is to use massive arrays of hard drives to collect terabytes, petabytes, and even exabytes of data-in short, to vacuum up virtually all electronic communications with the intent scrutinizing it later using data mining techniques across myriad databases. No doubt such techniques can be of use in intelligence targeting and also in after-the-crime investigations of terrorist incidents.

However, why must the rules regarding U.S. citizens be so lax? Is there intent to use data mining techniques on these massive data bases in order to pursue partisan political gain? Are any contractors, such as BrightPlanet or Booze Allen & Hamilton given access to the massive databases of collected transmissions? Oh, and how about the Republican National Committee and any of its contracting firms that do political microtargeting?

If the link analysis software developed by BrightPlanet, Booze Allen & Hamilton, and the USG itself ever reaches the stage of granularity to permit a query on a particular individual and all of his electronic activities, the government will have acquired virtually total power over that, or any other, individual. Such information can be used for intimidation (hmm, is this why certain senators, such as Specter and Feinstein, so reliably roll over for Bush and Cheney?). But could such information also be sifted and aggregated to identify Republican voters to get them to the polls and to identify Democratic voters to keep them away from the polls?

Why are senators and congressmen not more attentive to this issue, a critical one for the Fourth Amendment and for our Constitutional protections as individuals? Why would they roll over for warrantless wiretapping with the thinnest of protections promised by the likes of AG Gonzales and NDI McConnell and with essentially no judicial review?

Is this battle now over? Must we concede that the Constitution is now officially shredded-with the explicit approval of senators and congressmen who placed their summer vacation plans ahead of the preservation of the republic and who once again swallowed the Bush Administration's tactical (and strategic) fear-mongering?

It surely is beginning to look that way. George Orwell, how could you have known it would turn out this way?

People are understandably very concerned about this vote by the Congress.

Thanks, Lowell

Whoever goes over there had also better have a good response to the statement: "So the intelligene community said they needed fewer warrant requests and you just believed them?"  There seems to be a sense that any request to broaden searches HAS to be coming from Bush.

There also seems to be a pervasive sense that this will be used on basically anyone the DoJ doesn't like, despite reassurances to the contrary.  Whoever goes over there will also have to contend with that one.

"they related to the urgent demands of national security. I chose to heed those warnings."

"and the threats to national security were stated clearly by Admiral McConnell as well as four of the eight Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee."

Makes me wonder what's really going on behind the scenes here. 

I am not going to get paranoid that there is a terrorist attack imminent, but there probably are real and credible threats.

Remember, al Qaeda often bides its time and doesn't strike again until years have passed.  One of their biggest strengths is their patience.  Because of that, I never bought the earlier threats immediately after 9/11.

However, the more time passes and the more safe people feel, the more the threat of another attack grows.  That is al Qaeda's modus operandi.

As Lowell has said, just because I don't trust Bush and Gonzales doesn't mean al Qaeda has suddenly become benevolent.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that changes need to be made to the FISA law. (The changes of course could have been made years ago, but Bush refuses to ask for them because he preferred to just ignore the law.) That doesn't mean the changes have to be exactly what Bush wants, rather than something else. And regardless of the changes, I don't want them done in a rush, with no time to read or research, by people who don't even understand the changes they're making (Feinstein admits as much in her statement).

I'm extremely skeptical about yet another convenient terror alert (Al Qaeda is going to attack the Capitol, even though Congress will be on vacation!). And have we ever seen any evidence that Islamic terrorists care about anniversaries, especially anniversaries on the Gregorian calendar rather than the Islamic one?

Bush believes he has inherent powers to do the surveillance without the law anyway, so the eavesdropping would go on without it, just as I'm sure it has in the months since the court ruling. All this does is legitimize his crimes.

All I'm getting is "trust us".  Uh, yeah, that's worked really *)_!@!@! well for the past six years.

Further, all of this needs to be considered against the background of a FISA court that is an almost laughable rubber stamp.  There already IS the ability to eavesdrop w/o a warrant.  And yet it's not enough.

Why not?  If there's such a convincing case to be made, make it!  "Trust us" isn't enough, whether it's George Bush or Jim Webb telling me, especially when it comes to fundamental rights.

Such a poorly crafted bill should have been rewritten.  I don't care if Bush was bullying them about "going on vacation" (like he hasn't spent 1 year of his seven-year tenure on vacation?).  It's an outrage that they caved on this.  And I cannot fathom why nearly everyone, even here it seems, is just willing to go along. 

P.S.  I may be giving al qaeda too much credit.  However, the dumbest thing it could do would be to attack us now. Due to the corruption and incompetence of bush-cheney, the country is falling apart.  If your enemy is destroying itself for what possible reason would you want to attack it? 

There was no indication that lawmakers were responding to new intelligence warnings. Rather, Democrats were responding to administration pleas that a recent secret court ruling had created a legal obstacle in monitoring foreign communications relayed over the Internet. They also appeared worried about the political repercussions of being perceived as interfering with intelligence gathering.

Still, "House Democrats on Saturday grudgingly prepared to move ahead with approving changes in a terrorist surveillance program despite serious reservations about the scope of the measure."

Wonderful.

And now I'm getting a vote and explanatory statement like that?  No.  Not good enough.

The law looks like it will pass and we can judge it's efficacy later.

The excesses of the administration are in broad policy blunders, greed and class warfare; not in the details of terrorist surveillance.  Certainly pre-911 counter terror operations failed but it's not a particular failing restricted to the current bums in the White House.

Me, I'd prefer that my legislators actually took some time and effort to craft an efficient solution that respects the Constitution.

I'd thought that would be a near-universal common Democratic value, but maybe not . . .

I'd like to think there are a few differences between the parties, with respect for the law being one of them.

Not that it takes much to be better than Allen, but still

We should not be using fear to legislate - as the Bush administration has done - rather reliable information.  Hopefully reliable information is guiding Senator Webb's decision on this.

I guess it boils down to trust.  I trust Senator Webb.  I don't trust President Bush.  Senator Webb has earned that trust up to this point - so I give him the benefit of doubt.  Hopefully these powers aren't abused and we aren't forced to later question that trust.

Had this been a more partisan vote I would probably be much more concerned.

Didn't he vote Nay.

First sentence: The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws...

There was absolutely no urgency about handing yet more unaccountable power to the administration. That someone as clear-eyed and otherwise courageous as Sen. Webb could be spooked into this vote by a phony "al Qaeda threat to Congress" is beyond disappointing. 

Neither Sen. Webb nor anyone else in the Democratic caucus has given us reason to believe that the outcome will be any different when the issue is reconsidered.

One of the three main points of Webb's platform all during the campaign was to check and roll back the expansion of unaccountable executive power.  This vote is an explicit failure to keep that promise.  It cannot be excused or rationalized.

That is not what this bill does, and Sen. Webb knows it. 

Also, the effort to hide behind Feinstein, Bayh, Mikulski, and Nelson does not do him credit.  The other four Democrats on the intelligence committee who had the sense to oppose the Bush bill have just as much experience and credibility as the four who caved.

Floor Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein, Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

I remember well, the day I saw the letter from Admiral McConnell, I believe the day was July 24th.  That's not a long time ago, but it was a kind of wake up call to us because what that letter says is, in essence, is that he believes the United States is vulnerable and he believes we need to move quickly to change FISA.

Now, from an intelligence point of view, many of us believe that the chatter is up. It is not necessarily well-defined.  But that during the 9/11 period that this is clearly a period of heightened vulnerability.  Therefore, what Admiral McConnell wants to do is be able to better collect foreign intelligence. I very much respect what has happened. I respect the bill that's been put together on the Democratic side and I respect the bill that was put together on the Republican side which is really the McConnell bill on that side.

The Senator from Wisconsin might be interested to know that some of us just met with Admiral McConnell particularly to discuss Senator Feingold's concern and there is a different point of view and a U.S. citizen in Europe, is, in fact, covered under certain specific laws - not FISA - but precisely 1233._ which I cannot remember at the present time comes into play and that U.S. citizen is subject to a warrant from the court.

Now, this is a temporary bill. It's to fill a gap.  The court has done something which has said that what has existed for decades with respect to the collection of foreign intelligence now cannot exist under the present law and we need to change that law.  It is my intention to vote for both bills. The reason I vote for both bills is to see that some bill gets the required 60 votes to get passed tonight.  We are going out of session. There is no time. I think this is unfortunate.  I received the democratic bill about 20 minutes ago, went into the leader's office, tried to sit down and get briefed.  Up to this point, I still don't understand it.  I spent all afternoon on the McConnell bill and am just beginning to understand the subtleties in it and the others laws that come into play.

So this is not going to be an easy vote, I think, for anyone, but we have to think of right now is on a temporary basis how do we best protect the people of the United States against a terrible attack.  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Floor Statement of Senator Barbara Mikulski, Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

Mr. President, I'm a member of the intelligence Committee, and like all member, I take my oath to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, very seriously.  Real threats to our country remain and as we approach the anniversary of September 11th, this is a time for more vigilance.

We have two proposals tonight. The Rockefeller-Levin proposal is the most desirable while the McConnell proposal is also acceptable.  These proposals are consistent with the principles t at the D.N.I requested to improve the FISA process. It enhances Intel collection against terrorist operatives communicating overseas foreign to foreign.  At the same time, it does provide legal safeguards to protect the rights of Americans consistent with law, a warrant is still required. I think it's time to vote. I think it's time to protect America.

We are are disappointed and outraged.  What are you going to do Senator, continue to pander to Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush, or are you going to show leadership against these people who harbor such contempt to our Constitution?

Frankly, I do not think the Congress should have taken a vacation at this time. Not if all the reasons they gave for voting for the bill are true. Or--- maybe they want to get out of the terrorists' target zone?

It appears the House is caving as we speak but I don't know what the final count is. I can't bear to turn on C-Span and watch the debacle. I'm already having heart palipitations over this I am so mad.

It's just more doublespeak (clear skies, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Patriot Act, no child left behind, Social Security "protection,").  Honestly, anyone reading that should have been skeptical. 

Apparently it's not good enough

"FISA already allows wiretaps/surveillance, with the approval of the FISA Court.

The FISA Court grants wiretap applications 99+% percent of the time.

If it's an emergency, approval can be applied-for retroactively (50 USC 1805(f)).

FISA does NOT need "revising" or "reform".

The GOP and Bush Regime are as audacious as they are mendacious, and with a MINORITY in the Senate won the the vote by beating Dems in the frame game and by threatening Dems with making them look "soft" if they didn't cave.  Dems caved.  Webb caved. 

Period."

We're listening.

I haven't seen any out of the 500+ comments that actually work from the "good faith" approach to disagreement. e.g. that the Webb's actions may have a legitimate rational foundation that a person just doesn't agree with.

When Webb says that his decision to vote for the amendment was the result of consultation with Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee perhaps he's being truthful?  I'm inclined to give Webb the benefit of the doubt on this one.

A six-month sunset provision and replacing the AG's sole authority with that of a combined authority involving McConnell strike me as modifications to the Bush proposal.  I would be a lot more comfortable if the AG was cut out of the loop entirely. 

I also don't see a provision giving legal immunity to the telecoms in this legislation for actions that they may have engaged in prior to 2007 -- something that the Bush administration has been pushing for.  Not exactly an ideal compromise, but the six-month provision ensures that this one will come up for another vote in the near-future.  This issue isn't going anywhere.

To hear some of them talk, you'd think this bill just transformed the Justice Department into the STASI

I have no problem with folks who want to take issue with this agreement on its merits, but the majority of comments over at DKos spend very little time discussing the merits of the compromise.

Obviously there is a political dimension to the vote, but I doubt that the Democrats who made the vote did so solely on the basis of political calculation.  In six months we get the chance to do this all over again; meaning--in the worst case--that Team Bush can only eavesdrop on political enemies during the early primary season.

If this was a matter of life and death in the administration's view, I don't see why removing Gonzales as AG in exchange for more lax legislation couldn't have been a condition for approval.  I would agree here that the Dems did drive an extremely poor bargain.

Perhaps some more facts will come to light regarding the manner in which this bill was railroaded through Congress.  If there are those in the intelligence community who believe this is Bush playing politics again with America's Constitution yet again, I suspect we will hear about it. 

I would much rather that we revisit this in 6 months, than that this "compromise" becomes the law of the land for the next 17 months to several years.  A lot of poison pills in this one, but the sunset provision is one that gives organizers a near-term target to focus on.  Support against this measure was not in place in part because of the time of year--a time when a lot of people aren't focused on big issues, but instead thinking about family and final summer vacations.  I would not be surprised to see a different outcome in February and March 2008.

But here is my main concern. Remember how the Bushies cleverly slipped into the latest major iteration of the "Patriot Act" a provision on the recess appointments of U.S. Attorneys (since repealed)? The main motive appeared to be to ensure absolute fealty among U.S. Attorneys by purging those who were seeking to apply the law rather than to pursue Karl Rove's political agenda. The most independent, honorable attorneys (with the exception of one klutz who was genuinely incompetent) were replaced with absolutely dependable, robotic, Rovian apparatchiks.

There is always a domestic political component to what the Bush/Cheney White House pursues. Do not the provisions of the new "Protect America" legislation create what is essentially a national security/surveillance state? Are there some buried provisions, which along with the non-public portions of recent Executive Orders, could give the "unitary executive" (neocon jargon for Führerprinzip) the "legal" means to track down and suppress political dissent and opposition? Such provisions might come in handy to suppress a public uproar after, for example, an attack on Iran which results in calamitous "unforeseen, unintended consequences" for U.S. forces in the Gulf and for the U.S. economy in the ensuing months.

Let us watch carefully what constitutional scholars are saying about this latest fear-mongered "Protect America" legislation. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com will be my first stop. Elizabeth de la Vega at TruthOut.org will be my second stop.

I like aspects of Greenwald's writing, but he traffics in a lot of hyperbole and strum und drang.  If the man has a sense of humor, it doesn't show. 

Are we supposed to sit back in mere amusement as the neocons and the "unitary executive" theorists shred the very fabric of our republic and its traditional, constitutional checks and balances? This must be what you mean:

Republican Lucy to Democrat Charlie Brown: "Trust me, Charlie Brown. This time I promise to tee up the football just so. Promise."

Democrat Charlie Brown to Republican Lucy: "Oh, Goodie. Thanks Lucy." Step. Swoosh. Flop on back. Groan. "But Lucy, you promised!"

Lucy to Charlie Brown: "Hahahahahahahaha! Got you again!"

I smell DIVORCE.

I hope DKOS and every liberal blog out there scream bloody hell at these BushCo enablers.  Six months, one Friedman, just like the Patriot Act.

It may be fun to pretend that the terrorist threat doesn't really exist and was all made up by Bush and Co., but it's not the reality.

I'll throw my lot in with JPTERP and relawson and Lowell on this and say that I'm giving Webb the benefit of the doubt.  I haven't studied the issue enough or seen enough information to have a conclusive attitude about that which influenced Webb's decision, but I do know that there has been a court decision affecting the current law.  With a sunset provision of six months and Webb's promise that this issue will be revisited and debated in full I choose to trust him.  I don't agree with him on everything, but I have seen nothing from him which justifies the vicious attacks and charges of betrayal emanating from this blog and Kos.  I guess for some people he's only a good guy as long as he's doing exactly what they want him to do, and when he makes a decision which they don't agree with, rather than wait and see what exactly led to it they turn on him and trash him and call his character into question.  Must be great to be so bleepin' pure and above it all.  Of course, purity is easy when it has no real impact on others or on your country.  Fans in the stands always think they know better than the guys playing on the field. 

same result.

Webb states that he consulted with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on this issue -- and that those views influenced his vote.  I accept that as a plausible explanation, because it is consistent with the way that Webb has acted on other issues -- most notably with the Iraq War.  He tends to do his due diligence.

What exactly is your understanding of Webb's reasoning in making this vote, and where is your evidence to support your view?

Against almost 7 years of evidence to the contrary, Webb felt that WE could trust the Bush administration with additional powers to wiretap and listen in on citizens communications and give even more power to GONZO, who last I heard, was under investigation.

There is not one instance where BushCo has not rushed to the cameras with "NEWS" of a significant tidbit that it possessed in reference to "terrorist".  For example the subway/bus bombings in London.  Against the advice of Scotland Yard, BushCo released the information BEFORE the investigation was complete and all suspects had been found.

So Webb is telling us, that based on information SO SECRET, that if we the citizens were aware of it we will run in circles pulling out our hair, he decided that giving more power to BushCo was the right thing to do.  For the children.

Catzmaw - there are people, 26% of the US, who believe that Bush can do NO WRONG. Coupled with an incurious tabloid MSM they have done this country irreparable harm.

Politicians work for us; we are not ruled by politicians last I checked.  Webb does not, and has not, listened to us since he was elected.  As someone else stated above, his office will not return email, or answer the phones.

Webb needs a reality check.  I don't owe him squat.  Not my respect, not my allegiance, nor any benefit of the doubt.  He owes us.

Who's to say that Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Nelson didn't have sources of their own who were confirming that the FISA Court's recent limit on surveillance activities  was seriously hampering legitimate intelligence gathering activities?

A technical point too, we wouldn't need to revise surveillance laws if we were still in the age of "wiretaps".  That's a large part of the difficulty here.

Your argument basically boils down to "I don't trust anything that Bush does, or any authorities that his people say they need, etc, etc."

I don't either.  That doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate concern in reference to the current state of the FISA law vis a vis international surveillance activities.

Oh, I see.  The issue here isn't whether it makes sense to amend the FISA law, or even whether the FISA law should be amended, the point is that "Webb felt WE could trust the Bush administration . . ."  Obviously there are a lot of people who don't, and with good reason.  But that doesn't really address the core issue as it relates to amending FISA.

Also, if you think that "WE" as in the lefty-blogosphere is short-hand for the WE as in every voting citizen in Virginia, I think you are grossly overstating the case.  There are a lot of "we's" who are going to be pissed; there are a lot of "we's" who are likely to be troubled; there are likely to be a lot of "we's" who are completely satisfied; and an even larger number of "we's" who don't have a fully formed opinion one way or another on this issue (either because they don't care/they don't know/or they are willing to admit that they are working from a knowledge set that is incomplete and reserve judgment).

The whine-a-thon Webb's vote started reminded me of just how visceral and emotional a lot of lefties can be.  You're not really a leftie, but your arguments here and elsewhere are almost always founded on emotion.  Ergo, Webb voted the way that he did because he FELT that Bush and Gonzo could be trusted, and his vote was bad BECAUSE he's so dense he doesn't understand seven years of Bush duplicity the way you do.  Yeah, that's the first thing that comes to mind when one looks at Webb's work - he's too trusting of the executive and just not as smart as the self-appointed critics whose simplified understanding of complex political realities boils down to good versus evil.  Boy, does that sound familiar.  Not only do we have a President who talks in such terms; we have to have a bunch of left-wing ideologues who do the same. 

Webb doesn't have the most efficient staff in the world in your not so humble opinion so that means he "doesn't listen to us"?  WTF? Gee, can you lay out other examples of Webb "betrayal" for me?  How about his dwell-time amendment?  Did that just get you through the heart?  His smackdown of Lindsey Graham a couple of weeks ago did nothing for you?  His initiatives expanding access to the V.A. for rural vets,  the New GI Bill, establishment of a Truman Commission to investigate corruption in government contracting, and recent amendment seeking elimination of tax deferral for American companies overseas as a method of paying for SCHIP don't deserve any of your respect?  Is there any room for the possibility that his explanation is founded in political reality and not on belief in the goodness of Bush and Gonzales? 

The fact that Webb didn't do what you or I or others here wanted doesn't mean he deserves your disrespect or disdain.  Instead, his record thus far tells me he's trying to do his job the best way he can.  He and McCaskill, Mikulski, and others did not come to their decision lightly.  And yes, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

In any event, if recent years have taught us anything, it should be that trust in men, instead of laws, is no way to run a government.

In any event, Webb's vote here gives us only half of that sentence, I'm afraid.

I am even doubtful that they, or even their staffers, scrutinize the issues on the merits as closely as do the better blogosphere observers, such as Glenn Greenwald.

Keep in mind that Rep. Silvestre Reyes, now Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is pretty much an ignoramus who is woefully uninformed about some key intelligence targets: al Qaeda, Shia-Sunni rivalries, the nature and internal divisions among Islamic jihadists, etc.  Rep. Jane Harman, despite her strong AIPAC bias, would have been a far better chairman.

As for writing letters to Senators and Congressmen: we all know that even staffers do not take time to read such communications, except to note the subject to send a form letter reply. As for e-mails to an office on the Hill--no one ever reads them. Phone calls? At best a staffer will make a tick on a tally sheet.

We're left with foot soldiering for campaigns and hoping that our votes will be fairly counted, for there is no political figure who dares lead a movement of "direct action," as, for example, the "Orange Revolution" in the Ukraine (however fleeting its results) or the movement lead by Solidarity in Poland in the 1980's.

Verification is transparency, and where transparency cannot be had (say, perhaps, in this instance), reliable institutional checks and balances (not at all present in this case).

Disgust is one aspect of anger I suppose. And I am disgusted with the "we can't tell you WHY but this is for your own good".  Chertoff had a gut feeling, so we must capitulate.  Cheney say's Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, so it must be true.  Right?

The "Ashley Flanagan Employment/Welfare PAC" (Born Fighting PAC) was up and operational before Webb had even put contact information on his "SENATE PROVIDED WEB SITE".  Priorities I suppose.  So yeah, WTF?

Webb has given no logical reason for his vote.  I do not owe him my trust and no, I do not believe "daddy knows best".  He has the right to ignore his constituents and I have the right to let him know I think he is wrong for it.

There is no difference in the Bush appologists and the Democratic appologists.  I am a democrat, but not a spineless one!

For all the jokes about lying politicians, sometimes I think the public is awfully quick to assume they've been sold out.

If it's really an emergency, then it should be serious enough to postpone your vacations and get a good bill passed, rather than rushing through whatever the White House sends you at the last minute without analyzing or understanding what you're voting for.

On the other hand, if it really is an emergency and the prospect of passing a good bill is unlikely over the next couple weeks, then it makes sense to put in a 6 month sunset provision on a bum bill that provides a short-term remedy, and then to come back and fix the bill after the recess.

When did the FISA Court limit the scope of the current program?  That's something that I'm a little curious to know.  If the White House sat on the information for several months, then yes, the fear based appeals would suggest that some other considerations are at play here.  However, if this ruling happened within the past couple weeks, then it certainly frames the issue in a different light. 

Fact one: The newspapers and MSM stories this morning (such as CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2...) say the target(s) are our embassies/consulates.... embassies are in foreign countries where it is much harder for us to protect ourselves and even harder to do FISA....

Fact two: the major thrust of changes in the new bill were in two areas; foreign talking to foreign and not saying where.... and the second area when you read the actual bill is in the expansion into new technologies being covered other than the classic telecom they have had the rights to monitor via the previous FISA arrangements. The "new tech" that is now covered will not have the same ways of doing things and the methods and techniques used become useless as soon as the first court case they turn up in even in "Top Secret" courts. This is because during a defendants defense there is "Discovery" as it is in our courts/laws and those in other countries who have very similar to ours. So you can't always tell people how you got what you got or even where it came from. At best, you can just say that it is credible to the degree it can be verified other ways. In the case of the juiciest stuff, you have to find another credible source of the information so you never have to tell how you so lucky guessed where to go find it using normal expected ways or you will lose that critical and sometimes very expensive technique/method as a means to get the earliest warning....

Fact three: things are now happening at the speed of the Internet and when you are using techniques that follow patterns and anomalies which is the biggest and most accurate way today, you do not have the time or the opportunity to notify anyone before or after and in the case of our friendly governments (whom are doing this to us also) you certainly don't want to upset them if you have a technique that is coming completely from their citizens. So you don't want to burn a diplomatic bridge that we all need?.. But as I said earlier when you get something juicie and credible and you have another way to have gotten it, you share with your friends like the UK and they nail some people before they can act. The technique of "plausible deniability" will always be a basic element of diplomacy in today's world. There are things that will never be de-classified and some that will never even be remembered by even those that had to do them?. The James Bond and Mission impossible stories although blown way out of proportion are not always just good movie plots they have some basis in fact. One quick example of something similar would be the technique used by some stock analysts in the 70's and early 80's to know when IBM was about to announce there newest versions of their big computers. It was known that it would always be a Tuesday by IBM procedure and history AND if you watched carefully the consumption of toilet paper at the IBM research labs around the country, you could always tell when there were armies of employees working very long hours just before an announcement. There was a well defined pattern and a handful of analysts made billions of dollars hiding that fact until it came out during "Discovery" on a stock price manipulation case prosecuted by the SEC.

Now I'm not saying any of this should always offset the actual invasion of privacy that will occur to foreign citizens probably in this case in a foreign country, but if you have a way to save thousands of lives and put "Bad" people out of commission before they can act, don't you have a responsibility to use those sources, techniques, and processes to keep our country and usually even their's safe ?? "The End sometimes does justify the means"?. I have relatives in the Foreign Service, I want them to come home safe?. I have Marine friends who have embassy assignments guarding our citizens overseas?. The terrorists want to kill them and as many of us as possible, they have proven it with the embassies in Africa and elsewhere?. Every so often one of the hundreds of plots that have been successfully intercepted leaks out like the one a couple of years ago in Rome where they were burrowing through the walls of the sewers to inject cyanide into our embassy there.

I trust Jim Webb, Barbara Mikulski and several others who have the actual information in their hands and the unpleasant decisions to make?. I also know they can't always tell us how or why, but when we find a worm in the wood pile you have to knock it out before it damages you. Self-defense is a basic need and right.

The thing that troubles me the most is the unwillingness of the administration to yield in reference to the first House compromise forged with McConnell.  The second thing that worries me is that this administration has never trafficked in anything but lies and deceptions to serve ideological, or short-term political ends.

Unlike those impugning the character of guys like Webb; I have no concerns about the man's integrity.  Being human though, I do have concerns about the fallibility of his judgment.  It is conceivable to me that a smart person with his or her moral bearings in the right place can still be played for a fool given the wrong set of circumstances.  Then again, it is conceivable to me that he knows pretty well what he's doing.  In other words, I am reserving my judgment on this one.

What I do know is that Congress would be well served by revisiting this bill sooner rather than later. 

And good point on Mikulski.  It's that kind of thing that leads me to think there has to be something else at work here.

Do I assume that I know everything Webb is privy to? No.

Do I trust his judgment? Yes.

Do I expect him to do the job I sent him there to do to the best of his ability based on the information he has? Yes.

Do I whine and insist I always know what is best in any given situation? No.

Do I have a clue just what he is up against and what is necessary to accomplish the goals I voted for? Not always.

Do I blindly/quietly follow and agree with everything he does?  Absolutely not.

I "hired" him to do a job. I expect him to do it. I have confidence that he is and will continue to do so.

Will I hold him accountable for his decisions and votes? Absolutely.

Here's the issue:

"#1: Do I assume that I know everything Webb is privy to? No.

#2: Will I hold him accountable for his decisions and votes? Absolutely. "

How do you plan to "hold him accountable" if your primary instinct is to fall back on your trust for him and assume you don't know "everything Webb is privy to?" How can you have a critical thought if that is how you manke your decision?

FWIW, I'm a northern VA resident and a Webb voter. I drove around with a Webb sticker on my car and have one posted in my office at work. I convinced my wife, who is a lifelong Repub to vote for Webb. I am african american and never would have voted for flippin' George Allen, no matter what. By I most certainly could have declined to vote for anyone at all. But I supported Webb. This vote seems to be inconsistent with the values Webb espoused WRT our Government treating people like people again....the Populist feel Webb cultivated....the notion of the Royal Corporations and Imperial Government being less critical to a healthy society than the rights of an individual. If this vote is protecting an individual, my Senator has yet to explain how. Given how this seems to run counter to his past words, I think as a constituent I am owed an explanation.

Oh, and characterizing questioning and criticism as "whining" has a nice Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly feel to it. I'm not sure that's way to rally us all behind Webb again. What say you?

You say "If this vote is protecting an individual, my Senator has yet to explain how."  Well, probably not.  But what if the vote was about protecting the country and by extension you and your family?  If you're a Northern Virginian you probably remember what it was like to watch the Pentagon burn. What if the vote was about filling a gap in our nation's investigative abilities?  What if he views it as a stopgap to address a current problem while something better for both our individual rights and our government's ability to prosecute terrorism is devised and put in place when the authorization sunsets in six months?  All rights are balanced against other rights, even individual ones.  My right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater smacks up against your right not to be harmed by the stampeding theatergoers I've set in motion.  It just seems extreme to me to declare that one vote on a complicated issue has abnegated all of Webb's populist rhetoric.  Instead, why don't we wait and see what he was thinking? 

You however have disdained, pretty emotionally, all who have expressed their extreme disappointment in Senator Webb's vote. 

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone but Senator Webb knows why he voted for this legislation.  He said he took advice and made his decision.  We'll wait to see how our rights are handled or mishandled because we'll never know whether the legislation was "good". 

They may calm down over there eventually, but for now there seems to be a mountain of emotion built on a molehill of solid facts.

"Instead, why don't we wait and see what he was thinking?"

How will we know? This is too important for me to accept on faith. I know that some of you folks on this board can....I see that. But if ANY of the scenarios you paint are correct? They are all classified. So, we won't get any more info for 50 years or so. How do we ever determine the basis for your trust?

And, why is your trust in Webb and better than some Allen constituent saying they worked to get their guy elected and they trust him as a good man? Do you get to proceed on faith, but would that Allen supporter be cast as a sycophant for ignoring his record?

What exactly would you have Webb do?  Do you want him to submit a law review article setting forth all the competing arguments and legal citations and suggesting a bright-line rule for this type of legislation?  It's not good enough that he says "look, I'll explain later, but I've seen and heard things that convinced me that this vote at this time was the right thing to do."?  There's a sunset provision in this legislation.  He and everyone in the Senate is going to have to fish or cut bait over the next few months.  Give it time and let the debate unfold. 

As for my attitude being the same as some Allen sycophant's, you must be joking.  I'm not, as you noted about Allen's supporters, one to ignore a record and say "trust him, he's a good man".  I do trust Webb, but that's because I have focused on his record and his history and have decided he's trustworthy.  He made promises during his election run and he kept them.  He introduced legislation.  He demanded answers to questions.  He challenged the administration and its toadies.  I would never trust a Senator who doesn't do any work and I certainly never trusted the shallow, affable, doofus Allen.  But part of what I trust about Webb is his mind.  He'll have a good reason for doing what he did, even if I disagree with him and decide in the end that it's not good enough for that vote.  Okay, so nobody's perfect.

Your opinions are fine and welcome.  As a courtesy, though, criticizing someone elses ability to think critically is a bit condescending. 

I am of Webb's age, background and inclinations. I know where he has been and where he needs to go to get us back on track as a country. I also did a bit more than display bumper stickers and I sincerely hope I swayed more than one voter, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for him.

I have had to vote for many years for who I thought would be the lesser of two evils candidate because that was all that was presented to me. I never considered that to not vote at all was an option.

Once my choice is made however, I will allow and expect the man or woman to do the job. I knew full well when I voted for Webb I was not going to be happy with everything he did but after talking to him and listening to him, I made my choice. Nothing as yet, not even what appears on the face of it to be an ill-advised vote, has changed that.

What I have little patience with is the assumption that those of us who sit safely out of the line of fire in front of these machines know as much or more than those we have chosen to man the front line. Should he explain the reasons for his vote to his constituency? Probably. Do I want him spending a lot of time on it when so many other important things are clamoring for his attention? No.

Shades of gray rather than the absolutes of right or wrong, black and white or even aye or nay now serve me better than all the "to the mat" opinions I held in my youth. All I am suggesting is that there are circumstances beyond my direct knowledge that have to be weighed and measured and I do not have all the information I need to get bitchy about it.

Trust in our elected officials is at an all time low, and for good reason. If I find that my trust has been misplaced, I will work even harder to fire him as I did to elect him. That is "accountability" and it doesn't take a whole lot of "critical thinking" to figure it out.

And, BTW, I do not characterize questioning and criticism as whining. Questioning and criticizing are some of my favorite things and a couple of those "inalienable rights" we are all trying so hard to preserve in the face of all odds. I know whining when I see/hear it.

There are far greater battles to pick and choose from than a six month extension of the status quo. So just who do YOU want to "rally" behind?

Seriously? I don't think I am being overly sensitive when I get offended at your paternalistic tone. You've been at this twice as long as I have? You signed up more than one other voter? Well congratulations to you. My point was not to compare the length of our Johnsons. My point was to tell you I am not dispassionate about the subject of Jim Webb. Clearly you are not either. But I'll be damned if I'll defer to your superior wisdom because you campaigned harder than I did.

And the fact that you would falsely and probably intentionally characterize this vote as an "extension of the status quo" proves that you do not have a critical bone in your body.

"The key provision of S.1927 is new section 105A of FISA (see page 2), which categorically excludes from FISA's requirements any and all "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons. Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at persons in the U.S.

The key term, obviously, is "directed at." The bill includes no definition of it. "

From http://balkin.blogsp...

Look, sell crazy to someone else.

Forgive my error in assuming that I was engaged in an exchange of ideas and thoughts and not just a waggle-thon.

Paternalistic? Comparing Johnsons? Sorry, wrong sex.

Superior wisdom? The ability to read, think, comment and not automatically take offense translates as "superior"?

You are right about one thing, a reality check is definitely in order when you automatically perceive an attack within information given when none was intended.

Waggle on.

Your substantive opposition is that the vote "seems to be inconsistent with the values...treating people like people again." I am assuming you think that the FISA act amendment does not treat people like people. On further analysis though I do not think his vote is inconsistent with these values.

The Supreme Court has ruled (1990) (I invite you to view my longer analysis at http://blog.virginia...) that the 4th amendment only applies to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. As a result a warrantless search and seizure of a non citizen outside the U.S. would be permitted. The amendment to FISA which Webb voted for at least brings these searches within the purview of the FISA court and requires a warrant. I don't think that is bad and Webb's vote for it therefore may not be inconsistent with the values you ascribe to him.

I will say, however, that a lot of people's trust gets strained on the part about the Atty General being in on it.  They don't trust the guy, and understandably so.  But there was no real way to get around that, I don't think.  The DoJ had to be included in the process somehow.

Of course, there are some who think that FISA didn't need to be modernized.  But that's another argument entirely.

And a lot of the ardent critics have been reading the analysis on Balkinization by lawyers who are experienced in interpreting this sort of legislation. It's not just mindless cries of "Bush bad!"

And more often that not, everyone just shudders in their boots.  And I thought that, at least, that wouldn't happen with Jim Webb.

No
Scott, Robert C. (D); Virginia, 3rd
Moran, James P. (D); Virginia, 8th
Boucher, Rick (D); Virginia, 9th

Not Voting
Davis, Jo Ann (R); Virginia, 1st
Goode, Virgil H. (R); Virginia, 5th