One of a seemingly exponentially burgeoning crop of hydra heads springing from this abominable FISA/surveillance/immunity question is that it's another example of perception and discourse shifting so far towards the right/authoriarian end of the spectrum that the FISA court is now implicitly regarded as a useful bulwark to safeguard civil liberties.

That is, my impression of the FISA court is that it exists as a government-friendly fig leaf manufacturer in the first place, and performs only quasi-pro forma checks and scrutiny of government law enforcement requests to authorize clandestine surveillance and monitoring. I'm too busy writing long sentences now to Google the numbers, but I believe that FISA overwhelmingly approves warrants, etc., and has only rejected a very few applications.

But after a sustained campaign to abandon or vitiate FISA altogether, if the maladministration was somehow forced to capitulate to the status quo (it won't be), many of us would feel gratified and relieved at returning to a status quo where FISA performs its proper function.

Which leads to a tangential pessimistic hunch that even if Obama, the Lord of Change, is elected, that merely complying with existing laws in FISA-related matters will be seen as a triumphant restoration of civil liberty, justice, and the rule of law. I doubt that an Obama would "push his luck" and question whether FISA itself ought to be more transparent and rigorous in scrutinizing or checking the excesses of law enforcement agencies.

On another note, something struck me about the continuing assertions by the government charlatans and misfeasors so ably, if painfully, cited in Glenn's work that telecoms must be granted immunity and be treated with leniency in order to secure their cooperation.

Apart from the logical rebuttals to this canard, it reminds me of those ill-advised, absurd, and awkward personal situations where authorities discuss someone whose behavior is in question right in front of that person. That is, there is this dialogue between the defenders of extra-legal "law enforcement" and its critics taking place "over the heads" of the telecoms in the middle. As far as I know, there are no intrepid journalists exploring this question by tackling the telecom execs directly instead of letting matters rest with what the political weasels claim about the alleged chilling effect of enforcing the law upon them.

IMO, investigative reporters would have a juicy story by holding the telecom executives' collective cloven hooves to the fire and confronting them directly with the question of whether it is true that their corporation would resist cooperating with lawful governmental requests or directives because of fear of legal liability. If the execs openly disclaim this, it fatally undermines the maladministration's position; on the other hand, if the telecom execs confirm that yes, they would resist cooperating, I would expect any public sympathy for the telecoms would evaporate.

It just seems to me that checking with the source would be an effective way to break this rhetorical point-counterpoint mobius strip.

That Fox News viedo clip isn't working for me. Am I doing something wrong?

________________________________________

Yes. You're misspelling "video". ;)

As one of those commenters who feels compelled to begin by noting that he's a down-to-earth, practical guy-- a Realist who scoffs at Purists-- I gotta tell you that you're way, way off with those wonky Savage questions.

This ain't the Whiffenpoof Debating Club, fa Chrissakes.

Clearly, you've failed to take into account that reaching the lowest common target demographic is the Prime Directive in the infotainment biz. Anyway, there's no room in the script for all that esoterica.

If dudes like Savage really expect to contribute to the process, they'll stick with stuff like: "If you could be any kind of tree you wanted to be, what kind of tree would you want to be?"; then, "Follow-up: what kind of tree would you want your opponent to be?" (It's the follow-up that really nails it.)

It's the Moops. The correct answer is, Moops... I'm sorry-- the card says Moops.

It was worth slogging-- well, skimming-- through this thread and all the genealogy just to see Professor Cole's succinct rebuttal!

Without in any way questioning the article and the learned comments, and the legitimacy of the varied tangents Obama's name inspires here-- I'm depressed by the overall premise that our malignant political life turns on, or is channeled into, a series of absurd contretemps like the problematic nature and strategic implications of a candidate's middle name.

I know, I know-- it does matter, for reasons eloquently expressed above. But Simpsons fans may know what I mean when I wonder whether Kang and Kodos are watching us from their saucer in synchronous orbit, chortling at how the Earthlings in the midsection of the North American land mass are keying on the candidate's middle name!

It's surreal. It's insane. It's indicative of something like political ADHD-- some seemingly inconsequential or, well, stupid issue is sparked by political operatives, or the corporate media, and it turns into a pinwheel that diverts focus and energy from boring, actually important, grown-up stuff-- e.g., critical and crucial issues and intelligent, rigorous analysis.

I feel sure that Thomas Jefferson, et al would be astonished and mightily chagrined to find that a free and ostensibly educated citizenry required persons like Professor Cole to patiently and gently disabuse them of drawing a specious negative inference from a candidate's middle name. And that comparable contretemps would occupy so much attention for so little purpose.

[...] Bloggers such as Salon's Glenn Greenwald have been pouring through Hagee's record [...]

________________________________________________

Pardon my frivolousness, but this evokes a childhood memory of a skit on the Ed Sullivan Show in which comic Jack E. Leonard, dressed in a dog suit, takes his master's newspaper.

When the master protests, Leonard barks, "I'll let you have it back when I finish poring over it!"