There's another diary on DKos that rebuts one of the points of the original diary's author and is consistent with what Glenn has said. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/26/105029/657/828/542268

I think focusing on the Patriot Act (which definitely needs work) is itself a bait and switch. The PA is not before the Senate at the moment and standing against the FISA amendment doesn't mean it can't be addressed in the future. In fact, I think this amendment exacerbates the problems of the Patriot Act, because if it passes as is, more communications can be swept up (but see pow wow's excellent comment below) and there is less oversight.

The author promotes (in comments) some of the Dean/Olbermann/Alter "new conventional thinking" - that Obama can criminally prosecute the telecoms once he's in office. Glenn wrote this downthread:

"The whole point of that John Dean interview was to concoct the painfully ludicrous defense of Obama that because the bill doesn't foreclose criminal prosecution of the telecoms, Obama's secret, super-clever reason for supporting the bill must be that he is aware of this loophole and is supporting the bill because he wants to prosecute the telecoms."

On Monday, Markos was on Olbermann, who asked him about the criminal prosecution option. Markos said that if that's the strategy, Obama hasn't said so, and it's not the sort of thing that needs to be kept quite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emvC6CMRFec

This criminal prosecution option is having a negative effect - it's making some people think this amendment isn't worth fighting against and it's giving Obama an easy way out.

The author (in comments) says we should pick our battles and FISA isn't an important battle right now. I think that's wrong and that part of that is to hold Obama to his word. No one should be cut slack on the FISA amendment, especially since the lawsuits that would disappear if this passes, are right now the best chance we have of exposing the Bush administration's lawbreaking.

I'm not willing to wait until next year just to hear Obama say that we need to move on, heal, unify, whatever...

Why is telecom immunity a bad thing? Because the telecoms very likely broke the law. The telecoms are in no danger of bankruptcy (see http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/27/litigation_costs/index.html), especially since they rake it in with government contracts (see http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/spying-telecoms-receive-billions).

And because the lawsuits against the telecoms increase the chance that the Bush administration being held accountable for its lawbreaking. Because it could all come out in court. Which Bush has tried to avoid for a long time. At least since Specter sneaked in an amnesty provision for the administration, not the telecoms, way back in '06. (see http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/specter-falsely-denied-proposing_15.html).

And a scape is a stalk.

Good Celery! I can rarely be poetic, especially when I'm delirious.

He couldn't have been pardoned, according to (what's left of) the Constitution: ...and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

“given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions.”

In other words, we should all STFU. He's making this harder and harder.

A blanket pardon will be absolutely vital to protect state secrets and ensure the nation's safety against terrorist threats.

Boo!

Barack Obama and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments: In Pledging to Work to Remove Retroactive Immunity for FISA Violations, What Kind of Action Is Obama Contemplating?

By JOHN W. DEAN

Wednesday, Jul. 2, 2008 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20080702.html

or click my sig

John Dean (link at sig):

Bush is very politically savvy. [How can the statistically worst president ever be politically savvy?] He knows that a blanket pardon, or even the prospect of it, could give Obama and the Democratic Party a wonderful issue during the coming months of the general election. Most Americans are deeply concerned about Bush/Cheney’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, which ignores American laws and treaty obligations. So if Bush is forced to pardon his national security zealots, or if GOP standard-bearer John McCain was forced to embrace such action (as he likely would be), it raises the issue of whether Americans now want to elect a president who is subject to the law, or endure another temporary monarchy which ignores it. And that is no small issue in this 2008 election.

Why in the world would Bush issue a blanket pardon before the election?

New NSA Spying Decision Undermines Arguments for Telecom Immunity

Today, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California, issued an opinion in Al Haramain v. Bush, one of the cases challenging the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. The Court found that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) preempted the state secret privilege. This important decision is particularly timely, as it undermines key arguments for telecom immunity on the eve of the Senate vote on a FISA bill, set for next week.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-rules-fisa-preempts-state-secret-privilege

I can't tell you how happy I am right now! I'm hoping that the Dems and Obama will now have the "excuse" they need to do the right thing regarding FISA.

Re: the courts. But, if telecom immunity makes it into this bill, those 40-odd lawsuits are gone.

You're probably right about the Senate. I'm sure we'll soon hear the excuse that telecom immunity is now even more urgent.

After spending some time at Obama's site and reading many of the comments of his supporters and advisors (as well as several of the diaries on Daily Kos), I think your analysis of Obama's statement deserves to be where more people will see it. Just my $.02.