As someone who live blogged the hearing at dkos what I found most important is the McConnell twice made the point that protecting the country from attack took priority over his sworn oath to Protect the Constitution. If this is true, and his only "duty" is to protect the nation over our Civil Rights, then the Terrorists have already won.

Wainstein conceded that there are certain situations under which intelligence analysts might disseminate information on U.S. individuals throughout the government -- if it's necessary for the official reviewing the information "to understand the foreign intelligence value" of the intercept, for instance.

"Hey Bob, can you find out if this person is a bad guy or not? I can't tell, but he came up in a dragnet." It's the old "kill 'em all, let God sort them out" mentality.

This is nuts!

For more nuts, check out these raging conservatives on neoneocon.com. Un freakin' believable!

In many ways this issue is more important than even the escalation in Iraq. Our
constitution has stood (and I know this sounds corny but I don't give a damn) it has stood as a beacon to the world and of more importance it has stood as to beacon
of hope and justice to the citizens of this country. It is like they (Bush, Cheney, etc)don't care what they do to our country as long as they get their way. Their actions are a direct threat to our well-being as a people and as a nation. And I think in our guts most Americans know this and understand this. It is why Bush can't climb out of the mess he's in, it's why very few listened or cared about what Petraeus said. Because we just don't believe anything they say anymore.

People, people, calm down here... vilification of the enemy is the end of useful discourse... and I am sad to see this discussion going down that road so quickly when it otherwise could offer a useful inroad to actual enlightenment.

Now, I don't actually believe that McConnell is evil, or otherwise wants to tear down the constitution. On the contrary, he believes that he, and his crony Bush, are actually carrying out a central, core component of their responsibility under our constitution, to protect citizens from harm. Remember- its life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we want- and its kind of hard to enjoy liberty, even limited liberty, without life!

Once we discard the easy, intellectually lazy route of vilifying McConnell out of hand, and actually take an honest look at what he was saying and where he is coming from, we can start a useful conversation!

How does one balance the sometimes antithetical responsibilities of a) protecting the nation, and b) protecting the civil liberties of American citizens? This is not just a question for the trees, and we all have to be honest, both those of us on the left and guys like McConnell on the right, that there IS no clear answer.

Surely if the CIA picked up a communication, somehow, that said that John Smith, a US citizen, was in Pakistan picking up a nuke to take back to NY, we would want that CIA agent to be able to tell someone in the US so we can stop Mr. Smith. Right? I mean, we aren't totally suicidal... BUT, and this is a big but, what about John Smith's civil liberties? Do we want the government to be able to spy on us when we are abroad?

Surely the constitution does not address this issue- there weren't a lot of Americans going abroad and potentially hooking up with potential freedom fighters that wanted to harm the US- as such, this is very much a question of our times, and if we are to answer this question like adults, we have to stop vilifying, demeaning, and otherwise acting like children in our dealings with the other side. This country deserves better than that.

"
Remember- its life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that we want- and its kind of hard to enjoy liberty, even limited liberty, without life!
"

Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry

The US Constitution was written at a dangerous time, btw.

What no bold text here? I'll use ALL-CAPS

Actually it was:

"Those who would give up ESSENTIAL Liberty to purchase a LITTLE TEMPORARY Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (emphasis mine)

To leave out the ALL-CAP words is question-begging as well as a false resort to authority.

The question remains, have we given up "essential liberty" if the government investigates us because our name has come up in a foreign national security wiretap?

"...Wainstein suggested that's something of a trivial and minor circumstance, but who knows?..."

Who knows. You know. The rest of us know. We know that these people are duty bound to protect us from Islamic maniacs, many of whom are already in our midst.

If you want to feed your fellow countrymen to the butchers, move to places like Denmark.

Here, we're hungry to defeat the Islamic murderers and we're willing to tolerate the minimal infringements on our precious rights in order to achieve victory.

If you can't lend a hand, get out of the road.