http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/26/62819/0991/926/542170

(or click on sig

Folks, if you think FISA is the last bastion of the Fourth Amendment, I have bad news for you. If FISA is indeed the last bastion, the Fourth Amendment is already gone. The current bill will not fix the problem, no matter whether telecoms are given the affirmative defense of acting under color of law. The problem exists in the USA PATRIOT Act, not in FISA.

....

Because you can't see the factual allegations underlying the FISA warrant - not even the trial judge can see that - you cannot challenge the validity of that warrant. It's not reviewable. Not at trial. Not on appeal. Not ever.

....

Your constitutional rights exist only so long as you or your lawyer can challenge their violation in court. If FISA is the last bastion of the Fourth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment is already a dead letter.

In terms of constitutional safeguards, the current FISA bill is a non-issue. Yes, it allows telecoms to raise "color of law" immunity as an affirmative, threshhold defense. And yes, that means the telecoms very likely will never be held to account for violations of FISA. But the secrecy of FISA warrants themselves voids the Fourth Amendment, if information gained from those warrants can be used in a criminal trial.

Sorry, left this out:

"The hill to die on" is the USAPA's breaking down the wall of separation between intelligence-gathering and criminal investigation. And that is not even at issue yet. We'll need a Democratic president, and at least 60 Democratic senators, to fight that battle.

The Beltway Pundits don't even know what's happening in the US hinterland; and they're going to tell us how to deal with Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc.? Surely if Bush had not kept classified all the results of listening in on our phone calls and email, surely the notion that the general public rejects Washington wisdom might have percolated to them by now?

Despite his sub-30% approval rating, our President is still politically effective, (click on sig for great cartoon illustrating this), because no matter how much he flies against reality, and is stupidly obstinate, and never finds a mistake in what he does, he still appears to stand firm for something.

Read Seymour Hersh's latest in the New Yorker (click sig).

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

Since Democratic leaders know some of what is going on, it may well be that they see this election, which otherwise is almost a sure thing for them, at risk because of an impending start to war with Iran. People would rally around the President and his candidate. This is why they would be so desperate to innoculate themselves against charges of being weak on security.

In about 10 minutes this morning (approx 9:00 AM to 9:10 AM EST) the membership went from 4150 to 4162.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

We want to show the Democratic politicians the consequences of playing loose with our civil liberties; money in the ACTBlue FISA PAC is one way; giving an estimate to the Obama campaign of how much support will be disappointed/fall away if this FISA bill passes is another way.

None of what we're doing is perfect; and it is all of likely little influence. Nevertheless, I think it is worth doing.

If it is in our power to create internet avalanches for the things that matter - let us do that.

IF you ever considered seriously supporting Obama, then I think it is appropriate to sign up for the group (click on sig).

This is what the group says:

"Senator Obama - we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!"

Since this morning, almost 3 a minute are signing on to the Obama Get FISA right group.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

Morning approx 9:00 AM - 4150 members

Evening approx 6:30 PM - 5800 members

In any case, it is a valid point, regardless of how sincere shooter may be about the universality of its application: Those who have sacrificed in the service of their country (in Cleland's case his limbs, in McCain's case his mind) should not be mocked.

Hardly universal. How about the German soldiers of World War II? Why would I celebrate anyone who is willing gun-fodder for an out-of-control military-industrial complex?

Just like religion should be respected except when it should be disrespected, the same holds with military service. I think John Q. Public understands this, because not going to Vietnam did not really hurt Bush, Cheney, Clinton; it was an avoidable war and no real stigma attached to those who avoided it.