"Extension!?": Klobuchar's justification of FISA vote betrays serious shortcomings

If you don't like the fact that Sen. Klobuchar supported this atrocious bill in the first place, you're going to be over-the-top outraged at her pathetic and mealymouthed justification for the vote. In a statement provided to the tcdailyplanet, Klobuchar said:

The bill approved by the House and Senate this week provides a temporary six month extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. While I supported the extension as a temporary measure, I remain concerned about whether there are adequate safeguards in the bill, and will work with my colleagues to address these concerns in the next six months while we enact a permanent extension of FISA.

While it's true that the FISA amendment contains a 6-month sunset provision, the bill Senator Klobuchar voted for "provides" a whole lot more than a mere "extension" of FISA. It's a major revision and amendment of the Act drafted by the White House to legalize their surveillance activities. Focusing her justification on the sunset provision is disingenuous, as there was no pressing need to "extend" FISA (either temporarily or "permanently") - as though FISA were expiring in some fashion, as her statement implies.

The truth of the matter lies in the simple fact that the Administration A) doesn't want to be subject to the judicial oversight required by the unamended FISA legislation and B) a FISA court judge ruled that the existing surveillance program was illegal; in response to which the Administration worked to change NOT ITS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, but rather the law that made it illegal - with the willing support of Senator Klobuchar.

On the bright side, I think the surveillance program may still be suceptible to challenge on Constitutional grounds - the UCLA v NSA case was done-in on appeal for lack of standing (damn FRCP! - I jest, the FRCP are great and good) but appeared to have traction on First and Fourth Amendment grounds (would a Separation of Powers argument still work? I don't know; though, with Klobuchar et al. kicking it for the Administration in the House and Senate why bother with separating powers . . . they're already consolidated in the legislative White House). The question here is, how on earth can a Constitutional case get it's foot in the door?!? Perhaps by suing an accomplice in the telecommunications industry (like . . . I don't know . . . AT&T) . . . good luck in the 9th Circuit EFF!!