Vile

Bush finally signs a bill, one that never should have been passed. From NYT:

President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

I don't think I have anything to add to the comments gathered at Shakesville.

This, from Jack Balkin:

The passage of the new FISA bill by the Senate and now the House demonstrates that the Democrats stand neither for defending civil liberties nor for checking executive power.

They stand for nothing at all.

Interesting in the comments at Balkin's post (and do follow his links, please) are those by Brian De Palma, who stubbornly seems to adhere to the idea that the president is an honorable man and would never allow any abuse of power by any government agency, and we haven't really given up any rights at all, and ignores anyone who points out that the new bill gives sole discretion to the executive to determine what consitutes "intelligence," "national security interests," or anything else involved.

Among others, I credit Rahm Emanuel, who was the one who moved the Democrats' congressional make-up to the right in the last election by slating non-Democrat Democrats. I sincerely regret that he's no longer my congressman (I moved out of his disrict), because I would love to walk into his office and tell his staff exactly what this constituent thinks of his efforts. As it is, my current representative, Jan Schakowsky, is going to get an earful, simply for being a Democrat.

And it's not going to stop here. Did anyone really think it would? Get this -- the pinnacle of something, I'm just not sure what. From the horse's . . . uh, mouth:

"When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001," he said.

Just try parsing that one. I dare you.

If I weren't nearly mute from outrage, I'd probably be almost as complimentary to the Democrats as Cenk Uygur.

Jane Hamsher has a telling post on just how incompetent the Democratic leadership is.