Cohen writes as though he thinks Greenwald is a *Democrat,* and he's not. He doesn't give a damn about political parties. He is a hard-core progressive who cares deeply about specific issues that don't necessarily hone to party lines.

Here, though is the key nugget to all of this:

" ... the bad precedents set by the Bush administration will endure only if Congress and the next president affirm them. Among other obvious benefits, one welcome change an Obama victory would bring is that presumably Republicans in Congress will suddenly remember that the Constitution makes the legislature a co-equal branch of government, and will stop demanding the cession of their institution's historical prerogatives to the White House."

This is a classic battered spouse scenario. I am beyond sick and tired of replies to questions about the Bush administration's complete, total and disgusting lawlessness being answered with, "Well, they won't be around much longer to carry out their illegal and immoral acts." (Except if McCain wins, in which case it will be more of the same.) Does anyone have to pay for their crimes and transgressions in this nation anymore? The message here is that honorable people will run the country honorably, and dishonorable people will run the country dishonorably, and those are both A-OK because that's the way it's supposed to be. If the Republicans in Congress "suddenly remember that the Constitution makes the legislature a co-equal branch of government," that means it's OK, no harm no foul, because they bowed to the whims of a corrupt administration? Is that really what we've come to?

The battered wife analogy is well-worn, but it's well-worn because it's so got-damn applicable. I suppose the new, nice husband won't be so abusive. So let's live with the battering until the divorce is final and hope for the best!

And no, I don't think that Dems are "intent on dismantling the Constitution."

Sadly, though, they are too afraid to stand up to people who ARE intent on dismantling the Constitution.

Which is worse? You decide.

It is no argument -- in fact, it's a kind of lie -- to say that "allowing wiretapping orders issued under the Protect America Act to lapse would have genuinely hampered intelligence-gathering efforts." The Democrats could easily have avoided that problem by passing a simpler bill that permitted ongoing investigations to continue; they could also have just passed a temporary extension of the Protect America Act. If Republicans and/or Bush refused to go along because they were holding out for telecom amnesty, then the onus would be on them, and those existing wiretapping orders would be revealed as a ruse and a pretext.

Given that those other options existed, the measure that the House passed is inexplicable as a "compromise." That means it must be something else -- for example, an affirmation on the part of (some) Democrats that they positively favor a lawless Executive. That's what Greenwald has been objecting to. His campaign against Blue Dog Democrats is an effort to bring pressure on those Democrats from the left, counterbalancing the pressure they apparently already feel from the right and from corporate contributors. What's "nuts" about that? Nuts would be letting the other side call all the plays even when you've got the ball, which is essentially what's been happening up until now.

I'm torn on this too, I was hell-bent for telecom liability. This bill does some good things: reviews by the insepctors general, clarifies the law that ONLY this legislation is operative for wiretapping, and it sunsets in 2012 forcing a revisit. And it grants a judge the theoretical ability to review an apparently lawful order to comply with the administrations request and dismiss the case if such exists. The reason this is difficult is that the punishment is being meted out against telecoms instead of the administration. They are forbidden by law from showing any classified documents in court, and the administration can ultimately move to have them dismissed because of this fact alone; they've done it elsewhere. When I try to look back to 2002, I remember how angry, afraid, and uncertain we were. In that environment, if the President came to me as a telecom company, and said here is a lawful order to begin surveillance for 9/11 terrorsts, I would probably assumed 1) that there was good reason, and 2) that legal issues had been discussed and agreed by competent lawyers (ok, that turned out to be false) and 3) that the requirement had a sense of urgency due to the situation. Yes, Qwest was a hero and defied the request, but in reality how many serious companies in the same situation would do so? The liability calculus then was, another 9/11 soon or some possible liability some time down the line but the administration is giving me cover. The decision is obvious for both business and patriotic reasons. Some of us like these lawsuits because they ultimately would have officially decided the legality issue, and so what? In exigent circumstances, we actually expect our president to take prudent action, even if illegal. The fact that this administration took advantage of the terror situation to advance political goals is excreble. And hopefully we choose more honorably in the future. As an added note, it is not clear that immunity can actually be granted retroactively, and that will be challenged too.

So, this law makes what happened clearly illegal in the future, closing the loopholes. It provides a record, even if secret, of what happened and the review process for future presidents. Obama can decide to make these reports public should he chose so. And it reasserts congressional authority. And lastly, it take an issue away from McCain in the fall. IF OBAMA WINS, this is an acceptable compromise. He would, I believe, be in favor of as much transparency about this as possible and will probably declassify many things in the next year. However, IF he loses, which is MORE likely without this compromise, then things get cast in stone.

I've often said that the excesses of the Bush administration are not in themselves the problem. The egregious extent and raw political motivation behind them, coupled to the assertion of permanence, is the problem. I WANT the president to be able to act in an emergency, and W has not made that more difficult because there will be legal and political issues with every move. Ones that a prudent use of power by W would not have generated.

And, yes, if the Dems had tried to throw an extension or other measure up, and the GOP had filibustered, the Dems would have taken the heat. They are still, unfortunately, the ones who have to prove themselves in a national security arena.

Glenn Greenwald is an extremist ass and has been one for some time.  He is best ignored.

"...now made that more difficult..." in para 3, sorry

The entire debate of how the Democrats have conduced themselves in regard to the FISA bill is nothing but politics as usual which is built on gamesmanship and calculations with scant measure of political courage. The idea of criticizing Glenn Greenwald because of a lack of fealty the Democratic party is sad. There is more than politics at issue in the debate over the FISA bill. As citizens we are expected to follow the rule of law but as top level politicians this is simply not the case which is disgusting. It reminds me of that cynical joke which goes something like kill a man and get hanged but murder a thousand and become president. As a nation we are allowing our elected officials to literally get away with murder in many respects. Due to a near complete lack of political courage we are allowing them to break the law and undermine our civil rights with impunity.  How can we as citizens have any faith in our government when the President and members of congress use political strategies which undermine the basis of accountability in our society? If we tolerate the behavior of the Bush administration it makes no difference whether we elect Democrats or Republican we are going to get more of the same. Don't forget they are all politicians and party affiliation does not necessarily make one better than the other. The framers of the constitution set up the branches of government as check and balances for all men not Democrats or Republicans. Currently we are allowing the President to rampantly overstep his authority without the necessary checks on his behavior by the other branches of government due to political considerations and not for the good of the nation.  

w00t surrender monkeys