Balloon Juice does a close reading of the text:

Starting off, Marty Lederman has explained the limitations of the six-month “sunset” clause much better than I did a few days ago:

Although section 6© provides that the operative provisions of the Act “shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,” i.e., on February 1, 2008, there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:

AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT.—Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Thus, “acquisitions” authorized by Attorney General Gonzales will be permissible for one year, even if that period extends beyond the ostensible February 1, 2008 sunset date. I think it’s fair to assume that the Attorney General will authorize a system of such acquisitions on or close to February 1, 2008, which will mean that the warrantless surveillance can continue until . . . February 1, 2009, or twelve days after the next President is sworn in.

Oh gawd, it's worse than I thought again. Balloon Juice summarizes the awfulness and gives a highly relevant scenario:

as near as I can tell, the administration essentially has a broad surveillance power that cannot be practically revoked. It allows the government to listen in on communications involving anybody speaking to someone who even might be a foreigner, and even that standard depends on the honesty of a serial perjurer. Even if said perjurer manages to submit an application so improbably awful that the FISA court says no, the wiretap can go on until the Supreme Court issues an opinion that says otherwise, which probably won’t happen until the president has already left office. Better, that only summarizes the clearly written parts of the bill. Depending on your interpretation the mysterious section 105b could make the foregoing seem minor.

I am having a hard time seeing how this bill is any different from allowing the Bush government to listen to any conversation, anywhere, without the smallest legal hazard.

Imagine for example that Gonzales decides to listen in on Nancy Pelosi’s office. Even if Gonzales doesn’t lie (who could tell if he does?) or submit a cleverly vague application, the FISA court lacks the power to stop a Pelosi tap. Rather, listening would go on until the Supreme Court eventually rules on the matter. The DoJ, of course, is responsible for pursuing the case through appeals and up to the Supreme court. I bet that they fast-track it. In the best case scenario the Supreme Court rules some time next year that Gonzales should stop listening to Pelosi’s phone calls. What happens then? Sorry, my bad. We’ll stop now.

And that is where things will remain until 2009. Imagining that a useful revision will clear a filibuster is higher fantasy than John’s elf sword. Science not yet invented numbers that can describe the Dems’ chances of overriding a veto.

Unless somebody can convince me that I (and many others) have the story completely wrong, the current Democratic leadership is dead to me. If I’m still blogging in 2009 my top priority will be to remove Pelosi and Reid from their leadership positions and hang this albatross around any Dems who voted for it. It should not sound overly idealistic to say that we can do better than this.

Bingo.

Harry, Nancy, nice work. I'm proud of you.

NOTE Had to quote most of the post. Sorry. Pajama Media, I know, but at least he's not sluttish, pouty-lipped, concentration camp advocate Michelle Malkin.