The Republican party did very well over the past eight years following a strong leader who did not let even obvious truths to affect his judgment. The country and its future did not. It needs a strong leader whose judgments are based on truths, who is ready to call out his fellow party members in this regard and who will trust the citizens to reward such behavior.

Who do I write to at the Times to complain about this?

I'll use the front door if I have to, but if anyone has email addresses for editors or executives they would be happy to share, I'd really love to let them know how wretched their paper's fact-checking is.

Thanks again for this great analysis! Where are some real leaders?

We are failed by our elected representatives and the 4th estate, how sad. The crime of the century would be that this administration gets to keep corporate telecom complicity in illegal spying on citizens a secret. History demands the truth.

Marty Lederman has some false FISA claims analysis also, at http://balkin.blogspot.com/

We can’t go back to the old way of thinking. We’re living in a different time now. A time when we have to fight to maintain the ideals of freedom and democracy that our founders held dear. And freedom isn’t free. Freedom takes hard work, and hard cash, and hard choices. Choices between appeasing the terrorists, and preserving our democracy. Democracy isn’t about micromanaging the very agencies that are here to protect us. Democracy isn’t about letting people who don’t believe in freedom talk to people who do believe in freedom. We can’t talk to people who don’t believe in freedom. That’s called appeasement. Appeasement makes us unable to see how bad our enemies are. It makes us blind, and it causes warts on the hands. Washington, Jefferson, Adams…They could never have foreseen the circumstances that we now find ourselves in. Quaint ideas about open government, and privacy, and the pursuit of happiness, the idea that people can just run amok, doing and saying and writing whatever they want, that’s anarchy. The founding fathers didn’t intend for that to happen. Terrorists can’t expect to have freedom of speech. Terrorists can’t expect to hide behind the skirts of judges. Terrorists can’t expect the agents of justice to cease pursuit at their front door. Plain and simple.

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No." [emphasis mine]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

He claimed this issue as his own. He's stated his position clearly. If elected he will not be in a law making position. He can only signal his willingness to sign a bill into law. IIRC, Telecom amnesty cannot be revoked after it has been conferred. By not speaking up now, Obama signals that he is willing to accept telecom amnesty. So, what did that one-word response mean? How many ways are there to interpret the word, No?

So lobbyists and big corporations write laws for congress, often down to the wording. How about we do the same and come up win this case and send it along with complaints to our reps. I'm not a legal or political junkie so I could be wrong, but wouldn't updating FISA to specifically exempt foreign to foreign communications from requiring warrants be a short simple bill of the form "Amend U.S. Code x Section y to (some legal text exempting foreign to foreign communication)"

If someone legally inclined would know how properly write it we could forward it to the appropriate people and save the apparently headache inducing difficulty of actually writing a bill that solves a relevant issue. (then you have to get someone to actually propose it)

with Risen Reporting the NSA scandal to begin with.

Why would he now be "reporting" this seemingly so uncritically....

We already know Jack Goldsmith and others have been interviewed to determine whether they were Risen and Lichtblau's source for the December 2005 article.

Is this part of some sort of bargain to avoid the Hotseat Judy Miller sat in?

Can we impeach journalists who continue to distribute right-wing propaganda through the NYTimes? I am only half-joking. When will this madness stop?!?

If they pass an unconstitutional abortion of a bill that gives telecoms immunity (and by extension, full unconstitutional domestic spying powers to all future Furhers, err, Presidents) then they must eat shit in the November elections.

I, for one, will NOT vote for ANY democrap if they pass telecom immunity and all the acoutrements. They do not deserve a majority, nor the Presidency, if they will simply act, again, like Rethuglicans. There are some things that are absolute deal-breakers for me when it comes to my votes and my money. Blithely throwing away basic rights for ANY reason whatsoever is one of those absolute deal-breakers. I will vote Rethug and McSame in the Fall if telecom immunity passes. Period. End of story.

If they are going to act like Rethuglicans, then by shit, I will vote for REAL (criminal) Rethuglicans rather than cowardly, craven, slimy Rethuglican-lites.

You are completely wrong. In fact fighting a "war" on "terror," is completely stupid--it's like raping your daughter so she won't have sex.

What is war if not terror? Your ignorance of history is appaling. Nothing breds terror better than war.

For just one simple example of how tragically wrong this type of thinking is please see David Cole's article The Brits do it better in the June 12th issue of the New York Review of Books.

In August 2006, the United Kingdom arrested two dozen suspects in what was described as a plot to blow up passenger airplanes flying from London's Heathrow Airport to US and Canadian destinations. They were held without criminal charges for up to twenty-eight days, under a preventive detention law that had been expanded following the July 7, 2005, London subway and bus suicide bombings.[1] Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promptly announced that he would send a Justice Department team to study the United Kingdom's approach to antiterrorism. After all, the Brits had foiled the plot; we had not.