bah, if the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" what does that make this much older document, an amendment to what has been called "just a piece of paper" by the person whose undertook a charge to uphold it?

I wonder if things have to get worse -- much worse -- before they get better, before the dead-enders who believe in kings and other divinities understand what the farmers and tradesmen of 232 years ago understood.

Oh, you're just too reality-based and hate America and want the terrorists to win and junk. Put on your flag pin like a real patriot.

Did I miss any right-wing cliches in there?

KB @ 2: Why do you hate America?

I have a hard time understanding why Mr Obama is not getting it: he most definitely should know better.

McCain, on the other hand, I don't expect to get it.

Uh, hate to be the first to sound thick, but what's this referring to?

Daniel, Senator Obama has come out in support of a bill which is being fast-tracked through Congress with minimal public input which includes immunity for telecommunications companies which are believed to have colluded with Bush in gathering information on american citizens without due process (fwiw, they've been refusing to release any records, but Bush acknowledges that they did it).

Senator Obama, before he was the nominee, promised to veto any such legislation.

Senator McCain has never, as such, suggested that it would be a problem with him, so in his case it's mostly pique that someone who's been swearing to uphold the constitution for as long as he has doesn't appear to have read it.

Veto. Ack. Filibuster. Sorry.

Oh. That's no good. Looking at the date, it's also not especially good timing. Happy lose-limbs-to-explosives day, by the way.

that would pretty much have to involve leaving the house, which seems improbable right now.

Happy Fourth, all the same. I think we're going to hunker down with the John Adams miniseries on DVD (the kid took 1776 with her to grandma's)

Londo Mollari: Mass drivers? They have been outlawed by every civilized planet!

Lord Refa: These are uncivilized times.

Londo Mollari: We have treaties!

Lord Refa: Ink on a page!

If we're going to bring in Babylon 5 references, I shall merely point out that Vir got his wish too.

“I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave, like this [smiles and waves his fingers at Morden]. Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?”

I'm still steaming about Lochley accusing Sheridan of "tearing up the Constitution" when the guy she was supporting had already done so and S was trying to put it back together. And she got away with it, got a free pass, because JMS wanted to be all balanced and stuff. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

(What? I've been reading the scripts recently.)

Er...back in the real world, yes, that's disappointing of Obama. But then, I'm used to being disappointed by politicians. So it goes.

The worst part is that Mr Obama clearly has been lied to about what this bill does, and he believes those lies, even after being told that they're lies, by several people, Greenwald among them.

Crsp.
I was hoping this wouldn't be another year of voting for the lesser evil.
I'm tired of having to decide which lying SOB is the lesser evil.

kb @ #2, yep. You forgot to sing that horrific, bombastic, jingoistic, sappy Lee Greenwood song while typing.

In this context, in response to both political parties' actions on this issue, I'd add this:

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

'Cause I always like to remember what we're celebrating today.

Some people once pledged (and some gave) their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to secure these rights.

I hate to think of what they'd think of us, if they saw us today.

#15
I suspect Ben would be saying 'I told you so'.

They had a poll, over at Kos this morning, on which of the signers you'd most want to have an ale with. When I saw it, Ben was leading, with Jefferson second.

The worst part is that Mr Obama clearly has been lied to about what this bill does, and he believes those lies, even after being told that they're lies, by several people, Greenwald among them.

Senator Obama was a professor of constitutional law at a very-highly-ranked law school, and was the President of the Harvard Law Review.

I think better of him than to believe that he's not capable of reading and understanding legislation.

For people who haven't been following the issue: This isn't something that just happened today for a bit of Independence Day irony. Obama announced his support for the "compromise" bill with telecom immunity more than a week ago.

I'm certain the reason Obama is doing it is so that the Republicans can't say he's "soft on terror."

News Flash! The Republicans are going to say he's soft on terror anyway, so he might as well support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

julia, I did too. That's what has me ticked off: I expect better of him.

He keeps saying things that are flat-out wrong, like the FISA bill will be expiring. No, it won't - but the illegal programs that are using it as a figleaf are going to be expiring over the next several months. Unless someone (*cough* Barnacle Branch Cheney *cough*) is in a hurry to keep those hidden, there's no rush to pass this piece-o-crap bill.

In any case, if the secret police get into my computer, I'm going to be gone, even though I'm probably pretty far down that list.

#16: I dunno. I rather think ol' Ben would be disappointed in us.

Or maybe he'd think 200+ years was a better run of "if you can keep it" than he expected.

Either way, yeah, he'd be the founder I'd most like to have a drink with, by far. (After him, hard to say. Madison? Burr?)

I always thought of Jefferson as a wine man...although the mental picture of him in a present-day wine bar is pretty damn discordant.

The guys at Edge of the American West have been discussing this for a while. In fact, they've had some bumper stickers made up.

#22: I recently read Nancy Isenberg's biography of Aaron Burr, and it seems he might have been a good second choice... Isenberg makes a persuasive case that he was a better guy than popular history made him out to be. Not a paragon, but most of his faults weren't uncommon among early American political types.

On the other hand, you might want to stay on the other side of the bar from Alexander Hamilton.

PJ #13:

This comment has the scent of those comments by Reagan supporters, all those years back, that he meant well, but was merely mislead by his advisors about what kind of deficits he was running, Iran-Contra, etc. Anyway, if a US Senator and constitional law scholar can't be expected to read the legislation he supports for himself, who the hell can be expected to do so? And why should I expect President Obama to bother reading and understanding legislation sent to him for signing? Won't he be just as likely to be mislead then as now?

I guess this is the part of the campaign where Obama "moves to the center" by abandoning most of the good ideas popular among Democrats, while retaining the bad ones, and adding new bad ideas backed by the Republicans.

I find it fascinating that Obama "moves to the center" shortly after getting the support of the Clintons...

#26: The "if not for the advisors" meme is far older than Reagan. It was said about the czars, the kings of France, and probably the emperor Augustus.

I take Obama at his word, as the FISA thing is consistent with other actions of his; particularly over the last several weeks.

And taking on the Clinton campaign advisors and managers.

I'm disgusted and disappointed and depressed.

That someone who got his law degree in Constitutional Law could reverse himself on the open handgun carry of D.C. and then say that the Constitution declares a militia is an individual?

Why is he doing this? He was ahead in the polls. He isn't going to convince those who really, really, really hate him.

And then giving tax dollars to churches 'to help teach poor kids to read?' I thought our tax dollars went to PUBLIC schools, where kids are supposed to be taught to read.

Feh.

Love, C.

#28: The "if not for the advisors" meme is far older than Reagan. It was said about the czars, the kings of France, and probably the emperor Augustus.

In the spirit of the day, I'll note that for many years in the lead-up to the Revolution, it was said of King George III, too... until people finally found some, uh, Common Sense.

#29
Well, the churches in DC and other inner cities might actually do a better job than the public schools in those areas.

I'm not happy with that one either, but not as not-happy as I am about FISA.

... until people finally found some, uh, Common Sense.

That was Paineful.

And taking on the Clinton campaign advisors and managers.

There's limits to what I think we can blame on the Clintons. Far's I'm concerned, Obama gets every bit of the credit for whatever stinking dead birds he hangs round his neck now that he's the unopposed nominee.

#18 -- I think that was when Josh and I were at Contata, and Harold Feld asked me for the words to Kipling's "The Old Issue", which he was feeling a great need to sing.

Lisa #34 -- Yes, it was. I remember that one of you mentioned it in a writeup, and I instantly knew what Harold had been thinking about.

Ahh, The Old Issue

The original

A while ago, Avram Grumer annotated some of it, although some of the links are 404s now.

Here is naught unproven - here is naught to learn.
It is written what shall fall if the King return.

He shall mark our goings, question whence we came,
Set his guards about us, as in Freedom's name.

He shall take a tribute, toll of all our ware;
He shall change our gold for arms - arms we may not bear.

He shall break his Judges if they cross his word;
He shall rule above the Law calling on the Lord.

He shall peep and mutter; and the night shall bring
Watchers 'neath our window, lest we mock the King

Leslie Fish arranged a version (the latter half of the poem, more or less) as a song - initially published (I think) on The Undertaker's Horse for Off-Centaur, and rather popular around the East Kingdom Royal Artillery campfires, Way Back When.... Unfortunately, Undertaker's Horse is apparently no longer available commercially (although Cold Iron is), which is very much too bad - several really good filkings of Kipling's poems on that tape.

In the war against terror, the 4th Amendment is optional. Uncle Sam has a distinctly sinister look these days.

This is interesting. I support the 4th Amendment as strongly as anyone here. I don't like what Obama said on FISA, I think it was evasive. I wish he'd voted against it. OTOH, I don't have a problem with his 2nd Amendment stand -- in fact, to my horror, I find I am on the same side as Antonin Scalia on this issue, though reluctantly and not for the reasons he gives. And I think Obama's statement on "faith-based" programs is both sensitive and sensible. Which means I disagree with quite a few folks here, I think -- and so what? To quote Mr. Dooley, I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat -- and I prefer it that way.

Why the disgust, anger and depression on the part of people who I would guess do support Obama, or sincerely want to support him? The guy is either (1) a total con man (and I know there are people who think that) or (2) a very shrewd, smart, educated, good-looking, charismatic, liberal Democrat who has figured out a way to get elected President and bring the House and Senate along with him in a time when the process has been poisoned for Democrats for f**king decades. I vote for door #2. Is he perfect? Hell, no. FDR wasn't perfect, and he was as good as it gets. But he's damn good. Do you think John McCain would make space for serious disagreement from his supporters on his public website? I don't. Don't lump them together: they aren't alike.

James D. Macdonald @19, yeah. That's the game he was refusing to play before, which is why I voted for him. I wanted a candidate who wouldn't play that game. Now I am extremely displeased.

And pericat @33, yeah. This is all Obama. I put myself on the line to defend him with several people; now I've been hung out to dry.

Lizzy L @ 38
McCain's campaign would first have to figure out what that website is for. (I'm not sure whether their problems are their own or their candidate's.)

without addressing any individual comment, it would be well to remember that the first Clinton (and Rahm Emanuel and Bill Clinton) advisor Senator Obama's campaign took on was David Axelrod.

Unless you have solid evidence that Senator Clinton has any influence on this campaign, I think there are far less improbable ways to resolve your cognitive dissonance in this situation than blaming HIllary.

Perhaps less emotionally satisfying, but far, far less improbable.

Lizzy L, part of our disgust is that the general public agrees with us that this is bad law. It took time, but gradually more and more people out there in Americaland realized just how thoroughly the entire establishment, government and press, were lying to them, and started forming opinions of their own. The media establishment will follow the Republican line pretty much anywhere it goes, with precious few exceptions, but the public at large would like these powers reined in, just as it'd like us out of Iraq and doing other good things.

So we see here Obama sacrificing the obvious meaning of the Constitution for nothing. The Republicans will continue to attack him any way they want, without regard for truth or consistency; their media toadies will parrot it all and invent fresh bunkum of their own, because the press' conventional wisdom favors bluster and stubborn ignorance over actual intelligence and articulate rhetoric. He can surrender any number of points of the Constitution (and basic decency and sound government) and never get a concession from them. But he's costing himself a chance to align with the freakin' majority on the issue.

How is pitching the Constitution out the window moving to the center?

Bruce #43: So we see here Obama sacrificing the obvious meaning of the Constitution for nothing.

Obama's not a stupid guy. He's probably not doing this for nothing. He probably figures he can get something for it, though there's no guarantee that it's something we like. Maybe some useful group of swing voters. Maybe the support of the telecom industry.

Bruce, thank you. That makes sense. If I understand you, you are saying: this is a position that Obama doesn't have to take for political reasons and said he would not take for reasons of principle: so either his political instincts have failed him, or he's willing to bend his principles in an odious, unconstitutional direction, a direction which he explicitly repudiated earlier.

I'm less sure than you seem to be about the attitudes of the general public, but basically, I agree with you. I don't understand why he's doing it, I don't like it, I'm comfortable yelling about it and I will yell about it, up to and past the date of the election, when we beat John McCain's ass. However, it's not a deal-breaker for me. I suppose it will be for some. Indeed, I have hope -- perhaps vain hope -- that President Obama will work with the Democratic-controlled Congress to re-write the damn law back to what it was.

A deal breaker for me would be torture. If Obama were to somehow come out in favor of torture, after having voted against the Military Commissions Act and after having made very strong statements condemning torture, he would lose my support. I think I would write in someone -- Russ Feingold?

Bruce @ #43, in a comment to this post at Shakespeare's Sister, I wrote:

Is he trying to piss off a segment of the Democratic base every day now? The civil liberties folks with FISA, the pro-choice folks with this, the anti-war folks with his fumbled Iraq statements today -- Are we going to lose this election because our candidate panders to everyone except his own side?

You said it more eloquently.

Guys like Axelrod apparently define the center by looking at the GOP party, and moving two steps left.

They're trying to get the semi-mythical moderate Republicans and the 'uncommitted' voters, and seem to completely miss that they're losing the people who got them where they are. Or they don't care, which is perhaps worse from the voter's viewpoint.

I keep screaming.

There is a good deal on the FISA debate on Blakinization. Particularly Why Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won't Come Out and Say It)

So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy.

It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions.

If you really care about civil liberties in the National Surveillance State, you have to recognize that both parties will be constructing its institutions. The next President will be a major player in its construction, as important if not more important than George W. Bush ever was. That President will want more authority to engage in surveillance, and he'll be delighted for Congress to give it to him officially.

This is followed by even more discussion by guest blogger David Kris in two parts

Here is Part I and Part II

But by all means please read the paper "The Constitution in the National Surveillance State" by Jack Balkin linked to above. (It's a PDF but only 100k.)

The question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of state we will have. Will we have a government without sufficient controls over public and private surveillance, or will we have a government that protects individual dignity and conforms both public and private surveillance to the rule of law?

It's going to happen whether we like it or not. But we will be far better off if we decide what the character of such a surveillance state will be rather than try to believe it's still 1776.

Bruce #43:

The only way this makes sense is if Obama, the congressional Democrats, and the guys setting the tone for media coverage see this issue very differently than the American people. Plenty of possible reasons for this suggest themselves, as we've discussed before.

One of the most important ones is that the world just looks different when you imagine you are either a target or the guy who's going to be held responsible for whatever happens. It seems to me that the 9/11 attacks had most of their emotional impact on people at the top in our society[1], and that to this day, the folks at the top are more affected by this, more willing to accept dumb proposals "to keep us safe from terrorists" than the rest of the nation.

More generally, I think the folks at the top have a certain set of values and beliefs, and they're different from the values and beliefs of most Americans. A great many policies and ideas are seen very differently by the folks at the top of government and media than by most other people. The folks at the top appear to me to be much more supportive of widespread immigration, aggressively interventionist foreign policy, use of international organizations to try to reshape other countries' policies, affirmative action, and widespread wiretapping than the surrounding population. The whole ticking time bomb argument seems to be accepted a lot more than you might expect among those folks. A lot of issues pretty much never get covered well in the national media, I assume at least partly because of the values of the people at the top of those organizations, and how that differs from most of the rest of the nation.

[1] The anthrax and DC sniper attacks kept the fear and siege mentality going after 9/11 was over.

As a matter of fact, I do believe that the Washington consensus is almost as deranged in some ways as, say, the conventional wisdom of Moscow in the mid-1930s. Furthermore, I have some evidence on my side: half the country doesn't vote, and when Obama was rousing hopes among the public at large for an administration more responsive to their concerns, he got a huge turn-out from people who hadn't been involved before. Demonstrably it is possible to mobilize such people, not just to vote but to put time and effort into all the organizational stuff a campaign needs. He does not need that few percentage points of people who vote but are, basically, too stupid and callous to tell whether they favor the Democrats or Republicans on matters like the rule of law, unjustified war, torture, and incompetence.

(Harsh words? Darn tootin'. There've been good pieces in recent years about these "swing voters". and they are a vile lot, bent on doing something and not interested in having any idea whether the thing they'll push for is physically possible, legal, morally desirable, or anything else. Let the Republicans have 'em.)

I don't know why Obama's resolve to change the boundaries of who's involved is failing him now. He could run a perfectly straightforward campaign based on the continued mobilization of those who've been bystanders and supporting "all the rest of America" versus the narcissistic establishment in Washington. He seems to have lost faith in his own campaign, which I find deeply distressing. But I am entirely convinced that this capitulation isn't necessary, and will in fact hurt rather than help his cause.

Julia @42 - actually, I'm not blaming Hillary. I rather like both Clintons. It's the "centering" campaign strategy I loathe.

Is Bob Shrum anywhere near this campaign?

Brenda #49:

The thread you reference raised one interesting idea: Telecom lawsuits would reveal a great many more details about the surveillance so far. It's quite possible that those revelations would so shock the American people that the whole program would be shut down. That's one reason to grant telecom immunity, and it might be accepted by someone who wanted to keep most of the program in place, without abuses. That would fit with the way so much of the powerful folks in media and government deal with us clueless goobers, by simply not permitting the kinds of discussions that might lead us clueless goobers to do something silly like shut down a huge amount of wiretapping.

Another possible reason for telecom immunity would be if the telecom lawsuits were inevitably going to reveal even more surveillance that's been going on, which is believed (or claimed) to be very effective against terrorists. I'm not sure what that would be, but it's not a given that it's really effective against terrorists--to have an opinion on that, you need detailed information that very few people are going to have, and the time to dig through it.

Politics as usual. Bah!

Americans vote for Republicans because they're tired of what the Democrats are doing, and we get politics as usual. Then they vote for Democrats because they're tired of what the Republicans are doing and, once again, we get politics as usual.

I think those "farmers and tradesmen of 232 years ago" are rolling over in their graves at what the politicians are doing, as well as at what the majority of Americans are doing.

Never in my life have I been as cynical as I am now.

Paddy Chayefsky, where are you?

Everyone could use a damned good dose of NETWORK right now!

Scott, #36 -- Actually, I think the Fish / Kipling The Undertaker's Horse is again in print, as a CD.

Jason B @ 32: I know my George is rising at the mere thought.

Lizzy L @ 46: "However, it's not a deal-breaker for me. I suppose it will be for some."

I haven't heard anyone say (here or elsewhere) that Obama's cave on FISA will keep them from voting for him. Mostly what I've heard is a lot of people who used to be really, really enthusiastic about Obama and volunteered time and money, who are now unwilling do either. The votes he's losing aren't those of liberals who are too disgusted to vote for him--the votes he's losing are the friends and relatives of those disgusted liberals, who would have been convinced by the former Obama supporter's passion and now won't be.

What the frack, Obama. :(

Lizzy L, I fail to see the purpose of getting a Democrat in office if he doesn't stand for anything good.

heresiarch #57: I haven't heard anyone say (here or elsewhere) that Obama's cave on FISA will keep them from voting for him.

Well, it's not this alone, but I'm not voting for him. My state is guaranteed to go for him anyway, and since my opinion of him has gone from mild distaste to utter disgust, I think my vote will be better counted if it goes to his left. If I were in a swing state, I would probably reconsider, but in Rhode Island, I say to hell with him.

I've seen a lot of people say that they'll stay home rather than vote for him.
I'll vote for him, but I won't donate more money to him, and I've told them why.

Why would he take the word of proven liars over solid legal analysis as to what this piece-o-crap bill would do?
(The telecom immunity is relatively minor compared to some of the other stuff. There is nothing good in it.)

I'm with heresiarch here. I will probably still vote for him, but I've lost most of my enthusiasm for doing so. I don't see myself sending any money, or arguing very passionately for him, given his recent positions. And like Lizzy, if he bends on the torture issue, I'll vote Libertarian.

Count me as another still willing to vote for Obama, because even this doesn't put him in the category of nearly as dangerous as McCain. But if there aren't some big improvements, my donations from here on out will go to individual candidates I do trust and to organizations fighting the good fight.

#44: How is pitching the Constitution out the window moving to the center?

I think the reasoning goes like this:

On the one hand, you have people unwilling to pitch the Constitution out the window.

On the other hand, you have people who pitch the Constitution out the window and then piss all over it.

So if you pitch the Constitution out the window, but refuse to drown it in bodily fluids... then, dude, you're in the center!

heresiarch@57: We probably just need to strengthen our Constitutions . . .

Lisa Padol @ 56 -
Scott, #36 -- Actually, I think the Fish / Kipling The Undertaker's Horse is again in print, as a CD.

Really?

I know there was a copy produced, back in the 90s (I saw copies at Toronto Trek one year, when I went there instead of Origins - long story), but I have heard neither hide nor hair of anything regarding it in - years (and I checked Fish's website, that of the companies currently pressing her CDs, etc.).

If you have a URL (The Googles, They Do Nothing!) I would be indebted.

#59:

Lizzy L, I fail to see the purpose of getting a Democrat in office if he doesn't stand for anything good.

Seriously, consider the alternative. With the political system we have (and which there is not time to change before this election, even if there were enough support for changes), one of two men will become the next president of the United States. It matters which one. Even after these policy shifts (which I don't like any more than anyone else on this thread). It matters a lot.

Despite the media's constant attempt to reduce elections to popularity contests, we are not voting for prom king here.

If you want to put some pressure on Obama to actually uphold the Constitution and basic American principles, go right ahead. But when you vote, please vote for effect. The ballot box is not for "sending messages", it's for determining who takes office.

#66

Tat's why I won't vote for Nader. He seems to confuse ballot boxes with telephone boxes.

albatross @ 53
Telecom lawsuits would reveal a great many more details about the surveillance so far. It's quite possible that those revelations would so shock the American people that the whole program would be shut down.

And that would not be good for our country because there really are those out there who wish us harm. We need to protect ourselves and FISA does that. I don't care that much about getting the telecoms (I want Bush). What really bothers me about this bill is that it gives too much power to the executive.

PJ Evans @60
The telecom immunity is relatively minor compared to some of the other stuff. There is nothing good in it.

I agree with your first point though not the second. The bill greatly expands protections for US citizens' overseas.

A surveillance state is inevitable. I believe that people need to just accept that fact and deal with the reality. We should be working to get the best possible outcome we can. But we aren't going to roll back time and uninvent the global communications network. I have high hopes for Barack Obama. I think he'll be one of the best presidents in a very long time bar none.

Heresiarch @57 -
The votes he's losing aren't those of liberals who are too disgusted to vote for him--the votes he's losing are the friends and relatives of those disgusted liberals, who would have been convinced by the former Obama supporter's passion and now won't be.

He's losing another group of votes - the folks who aren't liberals in general political outlook*, but are sick enough of the Republican bullshit of the last 8 years to be willing to give a particular Democrat - especially one who appears to be willing to stop and or roll back some of the most egregious mistakes of the last 8+ years,** even if we disagree with some of his other policy statements or probable decisions.

At this moment, I'm still voting for Obama, because he's still better than The Other Guy. But he had issues I disagreed fundamentally with him on before he got nominated, and now has added more. The scale is tipping away from "Better than the other guy" - and if the Democrats are going to end up just a Parting on the Left, instead of a Parting on the Right... well, if I were in a better mood, I'd suggest that I would need to wail on an air guitar and scream really loud while David Caruso puts on a pair of Really Cool Shades (tm). But I'm not in an especially good (political) mood, especially on the day after the fourth.

*contrary to Mr. Baugh's assertion, not all of us are a "vile lot"....

**the accelerating curve towards a police state has not been a strictly Republican thing. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill - which a police officer of my acquaintance (Darth on Tangency, Bruce) whom I actually regard as smart as hell, but, well, Lawful Neutral with Evil tendencies in alignment - has stated contains far more powers for local police to play with than even Patriot Act did) was signed by a Democratic president, and passed overwhelmingly by a Democratic Senate and House.

Chris #66: The ballot box is not for "sending messages", it's for determining who takes office.

That's true for people who live in states that aren't pre-won. For me, I might as well "send a message" because I have no part in determining who takes office.

Regardless, I'm sure that Obama is in some hypothetical way better than McCain, but right now I'm having trouble seeing it, considering that he's backing down on getting out of Iraq, in love with warrantless wiretapping, and making out with Scalia every chance he has. For instance.

For what it's worth, Obama explains his reasons for supporting the bill here.

"This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

...

"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens."

...

"Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

Brenda @ 68

Senator Feingold on this piece-o-crap bill:
- On retroactive immunity, the bill virtually guarantees it, despite the fig-leaf of a district court review.
- In their infinite wisdom, Hoyer and the negotiators set the bill to sunset in the fall of 2012--just before the next presidential election. This bad bill should not be in effect for that long, and shouldn't be subject to election year politics, again.
- The protections against reverse targeting are inadequate--the guidelines for targeting someone in the U.S. are not subject to judicial review, or the requirement of a court order for that surveillance.
- The bill doesn't prohibit bulk collection--"the collection of all international communications into and out of the U.S. to a whole continent or even the entire world."
- The bill contains a far too broad "exigency" exception to the idea of FISC exclusivity--the Attorney General or DNI can certify that they don't have time to get a court order.
- Even if the FISC determines after that fact that the surveillance violated the law, the government can still keep and use any of the information it obtains under those illegal warrants.
- The bill doesn't provide additional checks and balances for Americans at home whose international communications are obtained because they are communicating with someone overseas.

-- Now, what protection do you think you have?

Shorter Obama: "I realize this bill is shit. But, it's better than the shit covered with piss that I voted against before, and since they've made some vague handwaves towards your--er, I mean my concerns, I figure my ass is covered. And don't even pretend like you hippies aren't gonna vote for me anyway. Compared to McCain, I'm post-Beatles John Lennon."

PJ, thank you for that analysis. Mary, Obama's statement on his website is a pile of... fluff. Read Glenn Greenwald at Salon (this post and his prior posts) for a clear analysis of the shortcomings of the bill.

I can see at least three reasons for Obama voting for the bill. (I'm assuming he's not a fool and that he actually knows what it says.)

One: despite what he's said, he's actually unconcerned about Presidential law-breaking, and he wants to continue this behavior when he's President. Brenda is correct, we are heading toward the surveillance state, and the only questions to be determined are the placement of the cameras and who gets to look at the video.

Two: he thinks the Republicans would use a vote against the bill against him in the campaign in some substantive and effective way. If this is correct, he's for damn sure not going to say so on his website.

Three: there are political reasons, having to do with his relationship with Congress,especially the leadership (Democratic and Republican) which are as important to him as voting against the bill. If this is the cause, or even an important but not the only cause, he's also not going to say so, for the same reason that Nathan's hotdogs doesn't put a video of sausage-making on their website.

In the absence of further evidence I'm choosing to provisionally discount One in favor of some combination of Two and Three, and I guess I'm willing to live with it for now, because I think Barack Obama will be a better President than John McCain.

You can find Greenwald's analysis here, too.
He's a lot more polite about it than I am.
There's also KagroX, at Daily Kos, and emptywheel, who are following this and have been analyzing the bill in its various versions. (The one the House Judiciary committee liked was much better than this one.)

heresiarch @57

You're hearing it now. I'm not a democrat, but I was a big supporter of Obama from a few weeks after he announced his candidacy until Thursday before last when I heard the comments he made quoted earlier upthread. I wasn't voting for him because I liked his policy, it was because I liked his politics, and I thought he would put a stop to the egregious things the Bush administration has done with its two terms. Supporting this bill tells me very clearly that at best he'll stop doing egregious things, but he isn't going to undo anything. That's a deal breaker.

If Obama doesn't change his mind and vote against the bill when the time comes, he loses my vote. And I am one of those people who has been recruiting friends and family to the cause - many of them disenchanted Republicans, most in swing states.

It was really nice while it lasted.

anaea, I appreciate your statement. Have you dropped by Obama's website and left him a message stating what you just told us? You could. So could everyone here, and who knows, it might make a difference if he got just thousands of e-mails saying "Don't do this." And yes, I know, it might not mean shit...

Lizzy, there's a group over on his website. It has more than 19,000 members (it's the larges group there, and has been for several days). Join (free), and you not only get to post comments, you get to have your own blog page.

If you do this, I also strongly recommend turning off e-mail except for the daily digest. It's kind of a pain - the site is not well-designed in some ways - but it keeps the mailbox from filling up with ten zillion pieces of mail. (Use something like a gmail address.)

anaea $76, by "democrat", I assume you mean "Democrat", in the sense of a supporter of the Democratic Party in the USA. It's a bit jarring, especially to a non-USian, to think that you're claiming to be, say, a monarchist or supporter of some kind of authoritarian one-party rule.

PJ @ #78, I didn't join the Reconsider FISA group, but I did use the contact form to let his campaign know I thought he was selling out (more politely than that). The group's existence was (I think) what prompted the response Greenwald has analyzed. It went from 0-8900 in about three days, which would certainly get MY attention.

Definitely turn off mail; even my brief exposure to his site got me a few.

Now if someone could explain why I get mail from John McCain and surveys from the RNC. . .

I also chose not to join the group; I left a message asking him to reconsider his support for the bill. So far I've only gotten one robot e-mail in response.

Lizzy, I heard about this on the evening of June 26th. The morning of June 27th I called his office in D.C. and sent an email. I am still phrasing my rejection as a conditional "If he votes for it, then I'm not voting for him," but I don't expect a reversal. I don't trust him anymore.

Mez @ 79, you are quite right, I meant a capital"D". Thanks for the catch.

Anaea, thanks for responding. I would love to know how many e-mails, phone calls, etc. Obama's gotten on this topic. That's one good reason for joining the group complaint on the website -- it adds to the public numbers. The trouble is, 9000 folks is not a whole lot of folks. Bruce upthread stated that the public thinks this is a bad law, and I hope it's true, but am not convinced.

Lizzy, 19000 (just checked: officially 19,495) members. That ought to get any politician's notice. I've sent several communications via the campaign contact page, which does get you a robo-reply (not at all unusual). The response thread to his statement Thursday cleared 1600 comments.

(At least they're allowing it: can you McCain's campaign hosting a group that's telling him he's full of it? That's assuming they even could figure out how to have self-organizing groups.)

19,000 is better than 9000. Good.

The person who posted here that the real loss that the Obama camp appears not to have taken into account the numbers of us who were able to persuade others that Obama was a good person to vote for is right.

I've been one of those people.

I no longer am. He just -- deflated me with his deliberate choices. Which it does seem he began making as soon as he took on board the Clinton advisors and strategists. Nor was there any reason for him to do so. He was winning on not doing those things. It happens over and over.

We need a new party.

Love, C.

I've wondered about this "Hillary advisers move to Obama's campaign" statement; I hadn't seen anything about it, so I Googled for it. Turns out I just missed it. The NY Observer has a story about it.

Brenda, there are no expanded protections in the new FISA bill. The already-existing FISA bill, which is not going to expire, already has all the protections with none of the problems introduced by the new one.

The fact is that we don't need any new FISA bill. The only reason FISA exists at all is because Republicans don't obey the 4th Amendment. Now they don't obey the FISA law, either.

The expanded program obviously doesn't protect us from terrorists, since Bush expanded it before 9/11 and it didn't do any good. Whereas Clinton didn't expand it, and managed to catch terrorists and stop further terrorist action.

The effectiveness of our security is not about the ability to spy on everyone all the time, it's about the willingness of our government to do its job properly. You don't get that by giving your rights away.

PJ Evans @ 72
Immunity is a problem for me, I don't like it. If I had my way I would go after the Telecos and therefore the Bushies. But we don't always get our way do we? I am glad that Feingold et al have been able to delay but in the end I think it'll pass. There are simply too many powerful forces that want it. Therefore I'm resigned to the reality that I won't get everything I want.

I don't think this issue is anywhere near as simplistic as some would have it. It is a complicated issue made even more so by the confusing by the opaque legislative process. And there is a real need to modernize FISA. Better would be nice but given this congress and the still conservative state of this nation as a whole, I'll take what I can get.

Avedon @ 88: "The fact is that we don't need any new FISA bill. The only reason FISA exists at all is because Republicans don't obey the 4th Amendment. Now they don't obey the FISA law, either."

Too right. The claim that we "need" a new FISA law goes something like this:

(1) Bush wiretapped US citizens without a warrant.
(2) This was not illegal under current law.
(3) Therefore, we need a new law.

But (2) is not true. What Bush did is illegal under current law--the problem, rather, lies with the weak, ineffective Democratic-controlled Congress who is refusing to do their fucking job and prosecute the criminals. If they pass a new FISA bill, all they will accomplish is teach the surveillance-crazy authoritarians of the Republican party that they can break the law, and Democrats will just redefine the law to make it not a crime. They'll also have taught industry that cooperating with illegal government requests is a win-win situation--you cozy up to the people in power, and you'll never face any charges. This bill is (hat-tip: Lee) fractally wrong: no matter what aspect you examine, large or small, it is still total bullshit.

ethan @ 59, anaea @ 76: Okay, I guess I was wrong--there are people who're dropping Obama cold over this. However, I still think you're outnumbered by those of us who've simply lost enthusiasm.

Avedon @ 88
there are no expanded protections in the new FISA bill.

Have you read it? Are you even aware that there is a part one and a part two?

The fact is that we don't need any new FISA bill.

This is simply false. We do need a new FISA, we really do.

The expanded program obviously doesn't protect us from terrorists

Bush is a moron. Not much can protect you from that. We should try not electing morons twice in a row.

The effectiveness of our security is not about the ability to spy on everyone all the time

It doesn't appear that this bill permits that. It's difficult to know for sure. The issue is very technical and the bill is complicated. To get a flavor of just how complicated please read the links I have already provided above to the discussion on Balkinization. Or just go to the front page and do a search for "FISA". This will give you a much better idea of the issues involved.

Still, I do accept Prof. Balkin's position that, like it or not, a national security state is coming and that our best bet is to try to shape the coming security state to our needs rather than sticking our heads in the sand. Thank the gods for Obama and for a renewed netroots powered Democratic party.

Brenda, FISA doesn't need modernizing, at least not the way they're trying to do it.

The FISA judges said last year that it worked; they've never had problems approving warrants; they've done it outside the courtrooms and outside normal hours when there's been an emergency.
The phone companies said last year that they didn't need immunity - they have some of the best first-amendment lawyers around, they ought to know.

What immunity is for is protecting Bush and Cheney (and probably several Congresscritters) from the consequences of their own criminal actions.

And I do not approve of that. Neither should you.

(Why the heck are they trying to redefine WMDs so they include butane lighters, exported cars, and gas and oil tankers?)

heresiarch #91: Well, I never had any Obama enthusiasm to begin with (of the eight original Democratic candidates, he was at best my sixth choice), so dropping him isn't much of a stretch. And to clarify, FISA is just one of many issues that have, combined, convinced me to go third party in my safely blue state this year.

Constance Ash #86: We need a new party. A-frackin-men.

Brenda @ 92: "This is simply false. We do need a new FISA, we really do."

Reading your links, it seems there is an argument that FISA does need to be updated to deal with modern global communications. However, this bill isn't it. Also according to your links, the new version of FISA allows Justice Department officials to order service providers to start wiretaps based on their own certification that all the rules are being followed. All the FISA Court does is review the guidelines by which the JD makes its decisions. The Court is cut out of the loop--JD officials could issue any sort of taps for whatever reason, and the Court would never know.

"Bush is a moron. Not much can protect you from that."

Bush is a criminal. That's exactly what the courts are supposed to protect us against.

"It doesn't appear that this bill permits [spying on everyone all the time]. It's difficult to know for sure."

In the sense that it doesn't disallow it, it does. Under the new FISA bill, we would never know if they were, nor would the FISA court. That's the whole point of FISA--without oversight, without accountability, the government will do whatever it can get away with.

Reading your links, it seems there is an argument that FISA does need to be updated to deal with modern global communications.

Thanks.

However, this bill isn't it.

True. ALL I'm saying is that yeah, it isn't it, but it's likely as good as we'll get from a congress that doesn't have the will to impeach. So maybe we should cut Obama a little slack.

On the other hand maybe my strategy of pragmatism isn't the best one. Maybe it's better to fight tooth and nail to the bitter end. I really wish I knew for sure. Buuuttttt... politics is also the art of compromise, of cutting your losses and knowing when to accept defeat.

Brenda @ 96

This is probably pretty meaningless coming from me given my voting track record, but there are things about which one should not compromise. There are things about which pragmatism is appropriate - I was willing to give Obama a shot on universal health care which I think is a very nice idea that can't be implemented effectively in this country. I was willing to risk destroying what stability Iraq has by getting out too early if it meant we got out at all. I was going to swallow a tax hike to fund a program that would make it easier to graduate from college without massive amounts of debt despite a mild allergy to taxes. My support of him was one giant pragmatic compromise, and I found very exciting. I've spent the last year doing a lot of, "Who knows, maybe he's right and I'm being too uncreative/cynical/penny wise and pound foolish."

But there are lines I absolutely cannot condone crossing. This is one here. If it's not for you, fine, but do think about and decide where your lines are so that you know when their under siege. I don't plan to accept defeat on my issues, and I don't expect to win, so I'll be there railing with you when the time comes.

Brenda @ 96: "True. ALL I'm saying is that yeah, it isn't it, but it's likely as good as we'll get from a congress that doesn't have the will to impeach."

I disagree. As is, the FISA court suffers from the problem of protecting slightly more than it was originally intended to. This is, in my opinion, inconvenient for American intelligence agencies but far, far, better than legally absolving the executive branch of seeking any judicial consent at all, much less absolving them of willfully violating the law as it stood, and telecoms of violating it right along with them.

So, no. It's a terribly law even without telecom immunity, and a significant step backwards no matter how you cut it. Obama is wrong to support it in any form.

James MacDonald at 44 --

I realize you know this, but constitutions matter because people believe in them. (The dead hide of some sheep doesn't rise up and smite the wrongdoer; legal and political processes have to do that.)

People believe in them generally because that's the construction of legitimacy that they prefer; the government is legal and right not because of heredity, divine right, or success in battle, but because of the consent of the governed and the rule of law.

Thing is, Teresa (and a good many others) are wrong when they call the current administration and many of its supporters and enablers a criminal conspiracy; it's not that they're not criminal and it's not that they're not a conspiracy, but it's also not that their motivations are limited to financial gain.

They've been going after the construction of legitimacy for awhile; substantially since the New Deal, much more since Civil Rights.

Some of that has been an immediate belief that any government that would treat women and blacks as equal to white men before the law is automatically illegitimate; much more of that is the belief that rich people are just better than non-rich people, and that you should be able to buy the political result you want. (Autocratic corporate control mechanisms and the disastrous 'money is speech' decision both contribute heavily to this.)

One of the notable successes has been establishing enough media control that candidates who do not treat the weird 'center' of the corporate proxy media as their core source of legitimacy don't get far enough in the process to get nominated. (Dean, Edwards, recently and obviously, but it goes way back.) They can't necessarily pick the candidate but they can certainly stop a candidate, which is really all that's essentially required to achieve their goals.

But, anyway; if the consent of the governed and the rule of law aren't where about 30% (it's probably more like 60% when the economy is good; most people who have jobs have a job in that corporate utter autocracy and associate autocracy with money and social advancement) of the population derive their belief in the legitimacy of government from, and this group has a lot of money and a deliberate policy goal of moving the functional source of legitimacy away from the rule of law and the consent of the governed, what you've really got is, well, it's never called an insurgency because the times people are killed by it aren't connected to it in that kind of narrative.

But that's more or less what it is; it's a determined attempt to take over the mechanisms of government and the construction of governmental legitimacy to serve the specific ends of a small class of people (who happen to be rich).

Obama may be part of that attempt; he might think that the current bill, while not very good, would leave him, as President, with enough purchase on the problem to do what he considers necessary, in some subtle way that is not immediately obvious to the folks trying to immunize Bush and Cheney; he might think that the bill is going to pass in some form no matter what, so the best that can be done is to get the least-bad version of the bill; he might think something else entirely, including such a comprehensive commitment to a view of the democratic process that he takes the view of any elected representative seriously because they are an elected representative; it might be something else entirely.

It's just about impossible to tell what it might be from here.

But, anyway; not really a criminal conspiracy, more a class-driven attempt to extend the corporate autocracy into control of public life, that necessarily considers the constitution entirely irrelevant other than as a modest obstacle.

Brenda:

One natural question to ask is, why must we accept the inevitability of a national security state? I mean, the government isn't some group of space aliens who landed in DC and took over, it's us and people we elect. It is no more inevitable that we'll have a national security state than that we'll have an apartheid state--something we had in a lot of the country for a hell of a long time. It's no more inevitable than a foreign policy of endless war and empire.

If we don't want to accept that stuff, we have one major problem--the MSM overwhelmingly accepts it all, and tends to marginalize or paint as a wacko anyone who disagrees. It's not really relevant for this discussion to try to figure out if this reflects the beliefs of the reporters/editors/advertisers, very effective spin and disinformation techniques used by government, blackmail photos and bribes, or whatever else. The point is:

a. Anyone who calls these basic (and overwhelmingly bad) ideas into question will be marginalized, painted as a wacko, spun as dangerous and unbalanced, etc.

b. In order to resist this, it's necessary for us to stop accepting and following that spin, even when it's directed at people we don't like, and even when it's said by people with whom we identify.

A long list of people who have challenged these ideas have fallen to this spin, ranging from Dennis Kustinich to Ron Paul.

The power of spin is the power to keep you from listening to, reading, or thinking about some ideas. That's often done by showing you only the crazy parts of Kustinich's ideas (looped, with extensive commentary, taken out of context) in order to keep you from seriously thinking about the sensible parts, or looping Dean's funny-sounding scream over and over again on the radio with a pithy label (the "I have a scream" speech) in a way that pushes people away from serious thought about what he has to say. A different side of that spin helps you see only the sensible parts of mainstream politicians' positions and their followers' positions--I think you'd have a hard time showing that Huckabee or Guiliani are noticeably less wacky than Ron Paul, for example, but the coverage tended to spin that way.

This hits the left at least as hard as the right. It's not at all uncommon to hear people express pride in never reading anything by some person they know they disagree with (because they've been told so), or to associate reading or listening to some stuff with being evil--the notion that if you watch Al Jazeera, you're supporting the terrorists, or that if you read a book by Pat Buchannan, you're helping the racists. Those beliefs are wonderful ways to keep people from reading or hearing any "dangerous" (to the current belief structure) ideas.

We need to stop falling for them.

Albatross: Well, the practical reason we're stuck with a national security state is that it suits a plurality of those with real wealth and power, and that they've felt this way in various combinations since at least 1943 or so.

This does not, of course, let us off the hook for using the power we have, and pushing the structure of things to allow us more, which we must then also use as wisely as we can.

I no longer am. He just -- deflated me with his deliberate choices. Which it does seem he began making as soon as he took on board the Clinton advisors and strategists.

and then the Clinton advisors and strategists used their position as refugees from a failing campaign which was repudiated by essentially everyone in any position of power in the national party to fast-track the legislation and push it through without it being read?

They must be awfully talented.

Senator Obama is, and has been since he's been in the Senate, a centrist, as defined by the faction in congress which calls itself centrist. The Occam's razor suggests that the explanation for his taking positions which are obliging to centrists is not that someone else is forcing him to do it, or has managed to punk him out of his beliefs in the course of a week.

If for no other reason, you can't possibly believe that a campaign in thrall to the Clintons would be floating Sam Nunn for VP...

I no longer am. He just -- deflated me with his deliberate choices. Which it does seem he began making as soon as he took on board the Clinton advisors and strategists.

and then the Clinton advisors and strategists used their position as refugees from a failing campaign which was repudiated by essentially everyone in any position of power in the national party to fast-track the legislation and push it through without it being read?

They must be awfully talented.

Senator Obama is, and has been since he's been in the Senate, a centrist, as defined by the faction in congress which calls itself centrist. Occam's razor suggests that the explanation for his taking positions which are obliging to centrists is not that someone else is forcing him to do it, or has managed to punk him out of his beliefs in the course of a week.

If for no other reason, you can't possibly believe that a campaign in thrall to the Clintons would be floating Sam Nunn for VP...

ack. Sorry about the doublepost

there are things about which one should not compromise

Agreed, but then as I understand the process of writing and passing legislation, you'd be a very unhappy camper in any representative body. You might be happier outside the process functioning as an activist.

why must we accept the inevitability of a national security state?

It is thinking about this problem that has lead me to lean towards pragmatism. So let's do that.

The ship of state is very large and it takes forethought and planning to get to where you need to be. So what do we see coming in the future that we need to act on now so that we have a chance of coping with? Nine billion people is one. Technological innovation that marches forward at a non-linear pace is another. Global warming is a third.

The sheer crush of that many people means you have to surveil. It's just impossible to "police" a huge number like that. We should accept that surveillance will be a fact of life and try to make sure that controls are in place to prevent abuse.

Technological innovation has a potential to be very destabilizing. Right now there are videos on YouTube showing you how to build a "gun" from an old microwave oven that can put a person down at 200 yards. People are nuts. Remember what happened when laser pointers came out? Now imagine the kind of world we'd have if a device like that could kill. It wouldn't be anything like Star Trek, it would be a nightmare. Monkeys just can't be trusted with phazers you know.

But I'm just getting started. What if everything I needed to synthesize any organic compound I wanted could fit in a suitcase? My neighbor pisses me off? I make a virus that targets just him/her. Or maybe I don't like blacks or men or for that matter, anyone.

But the most likely scenario is I think environmental collapse due to global warming. And, since I doubt we'll do a damn thing about it and given we're at a tipping point now. Well, I'll be surprised if any democracy survives. It's Canada that should be building a fence.

Brenda --

Policing doesn't get any more difficult with more people; the same rough ratio of one peace officer per between five hundred and a thousand persons works fine.

Imposing authoritarian dictat on a disaffect and disadvantaged population, that gets harder, but that is, as they say, optional.

The core problem is that while there are mechanisms that would allow the people making decisions to know what is really going on -- which they most certainly do not do at the present time -- implementing these mechanisms would alter how authority is socially constructed and require people to give up a lot of personal power. This makes the change very hard to make; it's quite possible that only something like the side effects of global warming will present an adequately stark choice between innovation and destruction.