Send envelopes filled with unpasteurised cheese to congressional offices?

Or maybe just pick up the phone and start talking into it and hope that word gets through to the right people.

Actually I think the main thing is to target the dems who voted the wrong way for brie-loads of mail, calls, visits, etc. My congressperson voted correctly, and I think I'll send him a note voicing my thanks and support. Maybe including a check too.

This doesn't seem like the sort of thing that moves mountains, electorally speaking. People don't like being spied on, true, but they don't seem to mind other people being spied on.

re: 4

Especially people with connections to Teh Foreign.

4 is right. Didn't the NSA program poll favorably when it was first revealed?

Look to the Presidential primaries. Send e-mails, etc., indicating that while you understand that Dem candidates must keep an eye on the general electorate, a Dem politician must address, in some compelling fashion, the importance of civil liberties in some fashion. The people lower on food chain will see that and follow suit.

I'd say that if there's an effective point of leverage, it's in the difference between 'terrorism' and 'foreign intelligence' and the difference between eavesdropping on non-citizens overseas, and on citizens in the US talking about non-citizens overseas. The 'conversation between two Americans about French tariffs' strikes me as not the sort of thing that's a strong support for the necessity of warrantless eavesdropping.

My congressperson voted correctly

Mine too.

4 is probably right, but by the same token, that also means the cost of switching one's vote is relatively small. Giving a legislator the sense that there are people watching who are committed enough to call, write, visit, write checks, etc. could easily make the difference.

8: It's not hard to imagine a Republican talking-point to take care of this. They'll say that it is necessary to gather general foreign intelligence before one can classify any further intelligence as relating to terrorism.

My congressman voted the right way, so I want to write to thank him for that.

One of my Senators voted the right way. The other, who doesn't appear to be running for president, couldn't be bothered to vote at all.

(BTW, I got the Senate roll call off of a dkos diary. I don't have nay problem clicking through to House roll call votes, once I know the number or name of a bill, but I get lost on the Senate stuff. Somehow, even though I started out at the page for the Senate version, I wound up on the house page.)

What counts as electronic surveillance is really unclear to me. Marty Lederman seems to suggest that it would be possible to get information on a conversation between one person in the U.S. and another outside without its being electronic surveillance.

I'm also confused about the certification procedures in 105B and 105C. See this Balkinization Post, Are New FISA Sections 105A and 105B Mere Window Dressing? Are they Constitutional

I've only had one cup of coffee. I'm generally a slowish reader, and I find that reading statutes takes me 3 to 5 times as long as anything else.

If the program truly is as described in the post, then I'm pretty comfortable going ahead and declaring this unconstitutional.

I find that reading statutes takes me 3 to 5 times as long as anything else.

If only the same were true of our representatives in Congress!

I find that reading statutes takes me 3 to 5 times as long as anything else.

I'd multiply that by a factor of two or three. I haven't read this statute -- it feels pointless unless I'm really going to sit down with a couple of hours and a highlighter. (which I should do, but haven't done.)

13- The NSA is no longer allowed to set up wiretap equipment within the Landers household; However, the conflict between the Landers court and the 4th circuit will have to be decided by the Supremes.

So, this thing sunsets in six months. How does one efficiently use that six months to communicate to Congress that it had better get fixed, or very bad things will happen to them?

Alternately, how might one effectively use those six months - and the new FISA changes - to collect "intelligence" assuring that certain congresspeople vote to renew it, or very bad things will happen to them?

15: Okay I lowballed, because I'm in awe of your reading speeds LB (and insanely jealous). I don't read court opinions very quickly either, which is why that it is so wrong that they have gotten so long. Still statutes are the worse. I'm okay when something comes down to parsing a couple of sentences. Does this require a permit from the EPA. It does if it's point source pollution. Point source pollution is defiend as a, b and c. It meets test a, test b and test c. But reading 100 pages of brand new untested statute is nearly impossible for me.

I'm pretty comfortable going ahead and declaring this unconstitutional

Brock Landers for Chief Justice!

ttaM, OFE, alameida, et. al.: banned.

Talking about them, also banned. Oh, wait....

Actually, I've sort of taken it for granted that there's the possibility I've been monitored, along with everyone else, for a long time. Not because I am up to anything bad, but because it's hardly a secret that Echelon exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

My Democratic representative voted the wrong way. Coincidentally enough, his local office is one floor up from my little cubicle. Any suggestions for creative direct action?

Broomstick, obviously. (You lousy kids, cut it out with that authoritarianism!)

If you could do it without getting in serious trouble, spy on his office.

Tap his phone, dob. He would do it to you.

One of my dem. Senators voted incorrectly; I sent her office a polite concise nastygram. But honestly, do the low-level staffers that read these things to generate the eventual form-letter response convey any message upward?

I think that only by showing oneself capable of campaign contributions and then sending the complaint to the office that collects money would anyone listen, and even then not much. This means that giving as soon as someone is elected is the cost-effective way to buy a voice; unfortunately, both the just-elected sen and my house rep are imbecile mediocrities, so I can't bring myself to do that. At least D and not R.

The book Hill Rat, though published by Regnery, offered an interesting perspective on how congressional offices work.

Tap his phone, dob. He would do it to you.

While the office was being constructed, I was dangerously tempted to plant bugs. Does that count as hypocritical?

Thanks for the explanation. I was too lazy to look it up and figure it out. So talking about Cuba on the phone would probably be a bad idea?

If everyone does it, it should be okay.

I'm sure I've been monitored for, like, forever. Before the whole Canada thing it was Mr. B's job.

I think what we should do is generate tremendous amounts of noise. Alameida's "osamaosamaosama"plan, if done on a big enough scale, could surely get coverage in the NYT style section, for instance.

30. If everyone does it, it should be okay.

An interesting new wrinkle on using technology to organise protests: "National Talk Suspiciously on the Phone Day".

lw, your senator sounds like my senator. You are talking about Barbra Mikulski of MD, no? She's been a huge disappointment as of late.

The thing with monitoring is that no person has to look at the data. The machines archive and cross-reference. Whenever there is a question about say a particular zipcode, or about the donors to a particular something, the answers are immediately handy at zero cost. Including hot words imposes no cost, and only marginally degrades the cross-references.

Yes, the proximal gripe is Mikulski, but the question about why to bother is serious.

Can anyone post a link to the roll call votes? Yes, I'm lazy.

If the program truly is as described in the post, then I'm pretty comfortable going ahead and declaring this unconstitutional.

Unfortunate you're not a supreme court justice. But wasn't there pretty unlimited wiretapping before FISA was passed in the 70s? I thought there were widespread abuses all through the 50s and 60s, or do we really know?

35: sure.

I heartily approve of the use of 'wankers' in the post linked in 36.

An interesting new wrinkle on using technology to organise protests: "National Talk Suspiciously on the Phone Day".

And then we could have "National Talk Suspiciously Like a Pirate on the Phone Day"!

But honestly, do the low-level staffers that read these things to generate the eventual form-letter response convey any message upward?

Sort of. They usually track number of letters by subject. Because so few people actually contact their reps and senators to express an opinion, a relatively small number of such contacts on a single subject can feel like a huge surge.