"The last thing we want to do is pass legislation that says, `Whatever you're doing is perfectly OK with us, but don't tell us what it is you're doing,' " said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the judiciary committee's ranking Democrat.

What happened to Wednesday's Specter, the one who was miffed that Cheney sabotaged his planned hearings on the administration's interest in telephone records?

In the past, Democrats have been frustrated by Specter, who they say raises their hopes with tough talk against the White House but dashes them with disappointing action. In April, Senate minority leader Harry Reid labeled Specter a "moderate Republican . . . whenever you don't need him."

The bill also shields from accountability any member of the administration who illegally spied on Americans.

Another part of the Specter bill would grant blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law.

The bill would give exclusive jurisdiction over cases challenging the legality of the administration's warrantless spying program to the FISA court. That provision may be a deal-breaker for the administration, which doesn't believe any court has the power to pass judgment on the president's use (or abuse) of power.

Oddly, Specter's new bill seems at odds with a bill he co-sponsered with Sen. Feinstein. That bill "would specifically restate that a president could conduct electronic surveillance of people in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes only under the auspices of FISA."

Make up your mind, Senator Specter. Are you for the Constitution or against it? Do you believe in holding the administration accountable or not?