I'd like to know what went into this decision.  I'm also troubled by this development.

I'm trying to contact someone in Webb's office...

from Talking Points Memo:

Bush is getting practically everything he asked for. Indeed, under Bush's warrantless-search program launched in 2001, the administration could conduct oversight-free surveillance only if it suspected someone on the call was a terrorist. Under the bill passed by the Senate yesterday, that condition no longer exists.

As Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, said, "If this bill becomes law, Americans who communicate with a person abroad can count on one thing: The NSA may be listening."

and from Andrew Sullivan:

Last night, the Senate voted to give the President pretty much exactly what he'd been asking for on the surveillance front...

[...]

It won't surprise many people to know that I am skeptical of what was passed.  While I do feel that Congress needed to do something on the issue of surveillance before heading off on holiday, I had thought the proposal put forward by some Democrats last week sounded better in terms of protecting civil liberties, while still allowing the executive branch to collect valuable intelligence via surveillance.  As I understand it, what was passed last night does depart from that proposal quite a bit.  The good news?  Apparently, a six month sunset provision was built into the bill passed last night.  So, at least any trampling of civil liberties won't be going on for years and years-- unless Congress decides to approve legislation like this again in 2008, that is.

Senate Intelligence committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller:

  We all agreed Congress needed to take immediate action in order to help keep the country safe, and the Senate did that tonight.

  My opposition to the final bill was based on the fact that it did not include the privacy protections and safeguards American citizens deserve and expect.

  We had the opportunity to pass a more careful bill that would have given the DNI the authority he requested, while also protecting the rights of U.S. citizens.

  Instead, this bill undermines the FISA Court and concedes unprecedented authority to the Attorney General.

  It does contain the six-month sunset that we insisted upon, and that gives us an immediate opportunity and responsibility to come back and strike the right balance.

Thanks for promoting this, Lowell. I think it's important that we express our opinions and get some answers on this.

...I decided to put down my own thoughts for the "front page."  Thanks for raising this extremely important issue.

I noticed that right after I commented.

So no comments on the vote itself.  I find something else you said interesting though: "I guess people won't be making the mistake of calling him a libertarian anymore."

I have to really stretch my imagination to fit Senator Webb into the mold of a "stereo-typical" libertarian.  Who was comparing him to one?

I guess I should ask if you are talking big "L" (the Libertarian party) or little "l" - meaning libertarian leanings.  Either way though, I don't think he has strong libertarian leanings.  I guess one might ask if you are talking about the Cato wing of libertarians as well.  They probably oppose him on issues of immigration, trade, and labor.

I think words describing political leanings are important and should be chosen carefully.  The word "progressive" is being used as a trademark these days - candidates want to garner the progressive vote but if you look at their records they are anything but progressive.  Please, someone explain to me how Senator Clinton qualifies as a progressive candidate.  I am not seeing it.

Definitely a lowercase "l" -- nothing to do with the Libertarian Party.  Kos and other people have been talking about "libertarian Democrats" for some time, with plenty of arguments about what it means and how applicable it is. Tester and Webb are often mentioned.

So they can follow all of the Democratic campaigns and know there strategies and internal communications.

Note - What states are their headquarters in?

If I was the democratic candidates - I would contact my state Attorney General or who ever has jurisdiction over the rights of citizens and request that any information regarding the survelliance of US citizens  be over viewed by them.

Realistically, if Bush is going to spy on the Democratic candidates he'll do it regardless of what the law says -- he already thinks he has the inherent power to do violate FISA anyway. And I'm not not sure how much communication the candidates have that's routed outside the US or involves people outside the US.

Pelosi is making noises about getting things fixed without waiting for the six months to run out, so let's hope against hope that something comes of that.

KCinDC:

Much appreciate your postings.

I think that we need to beware of the Bush meme that the "Protect America Act" is simply about monitoring "foreign" communications.

In the modern telecommunications universe of fiber optic pipelines, digitized voice, switches, routers, session-specific assignment of IP addresses, and the very nature of IP packet-switching, it is virtually impossible (with the exception of phone records) to focus on a particular to-and-from transmission link and verify that it is to or from a particular foreign individual.

It is hard to see how the "Protect America Act" can mean anything other than giving NSA (and perhaps foreign counterparts with which it works closely) the green light to vacuum up virtually all digital communications (data and voice) at the major telecom company switches and routers with the intent of sifting through the collected data later to uncover patterns and specific links. The main intent of the legislation seems to be the legalization of such massive collections to serve as the basis for data mining, and that--absent ironclad protections--is what presents the real threat to Fourth Amendment.
protections.

James Risen touches on this issue in today's NYT. Robert Parry had an interesting assessment last week at Consortium News.

What puzzles me the most is why the Democrats did not insist on a serious debate about costs, effectiveness, constitutional protections, and oversight guidelines before rolling over once again for Bush and Gonzales. We all want effectively conducted intelligence directed to uncover potential terrorist threats, but we also want assurances that these collection and data mining techniques actually work (before and not just after an incident) and will not be abused for partisan political purposes.

If we have learned anything in the past six and a half years, we should have learned that the "Mayberry Mafiosi" will use absolutely all means at their disposal to pursue their neocon agenda. And the troubling possibility to ponder is that this kind of collection and data mining capability could give these unprincipled mafiosi the ultimate tool for political intimidation and political targeting.

It is almost beyond belief that the Democratic leadership is not pushing back on this issue. Have key Democrats already been intimidated and blackmailed based on the electronic dossiers collected on them?