Thanks?

Is there some recent context you'd like to put this into?

Posted at July 4, 2008 1:04 AM in response to 1932: The Video

As much as I want to help, I just can't fault someone with the name "Beauregard."

Posted at July 1, 2008 12:23 AM in response to Sen. Jeff Sessions: An Embarassment

I am the Twelfth Customer, and I approve this message.

Posted at June 30, 2008 5:47 PM in response to Open Letter To John McCain and Barack Obama.

hehe

Posted at June 23, 2008 2:15 AM in response to Posted without comment

Title II of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, in its entirety.

Posted at June 23, 2008 1:50 AM in response to Posted without comment

Since you asked:

SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States

There's also:

SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

(a) In General- No State shall have authority to--

(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or

(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.

(b) Suits by the United States- The United States may bring suit to enforce the provisions of this section.

That last one is classy. You can't sue the government, but if you look like you might, the government can sue you.

But, you know quasar, you can read the rest of it yourself.

Posted at June 23, 2008 1:31 AM in response to Powers For Me But Not For Thee - doesn't work that way

was Obama polling his constituency ahead of his vote?

Possibly. All the better to let him know, now, what we think of the FISA "compromise."

Posted at June 22, 2008 11:24 PM in response to About FISA

I'm glad we can come to a consensus. THIS is what compromise is all about.

Posted at June 22, 2008 9:18 PM in response to This Is Exactly What The GOP Wants

If Obama either fails to vote or votes "yay" on the FISA bill as it is written right now, I think a reduction in funding is suitable.

See Mauimom's suggestion for specifics.

The money that Obama would lose out on would go to other progressive Democrats in the House and Senate.

Posted at June 22, 2008 9:07 PM in response to This Is Exactly What The GOP Wants

At this point I don't see the political downside of voting against the FISA bill.

There isn't a downside.

'commended.

Posted at June 22, 2008 9:04 PM in response to FISA and Kyl-Lieberman