That Obama statement will easily bring out a little bit of the adnoto in all of us.

There's been no shortage of the adnoto. But why isn't this Obama statement viewed as a real opportunity. He's offering a lever for pressure, it seems. Take him up on it--screw down on his upcoming performance in the Senate. Talk it up--repeat what he himself has announced publicly--pressure him.

That's what my inner adnotos are screaming at me right now. Of course, they're also holding a locked-chain protest, and fire-bombing my stomach-lining...

I cannot begin to express my disappointment in Obama's statement. The right answer on this - the principled answer - is such a no brainer. That a former constitutional law professor would come out on the issue this way just makes me sick.

"On the very heels of Nancy Pelosi's House giving George Bush more money than he asked for to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan for another year, Nancy Pelosi's House grants blanket immunity to telecomm companies who have conspired to spy on Americans with the Bush regime. Denny Hastert's Republican House wouldn't even do it and now read Glenn Greenwald's great article below explaining how Nancy Pelosi's House gives the Bush regime even more than they asked for (again).

This picture of her smiling lovingly at George Bush says it all. He is a liar, a murderer, a torturer, a thief and a criminal in the narrowest confines of the word, but Nancy Pelosi, who knew about his torture policies as early as 2002, adores him and as a conspirator with him, will not impeach him against the will of the people of this district and the nation.

Have you had enough yet? How many clauses and amendments to the Constitution will the Bush-Pelosi team destroy before you say "enough is enough?" How many wars? How many needless deaths? How many foreclosures? How high gas? How many jobs lost to outsourcing or recession? How much longer can we allow the degradation of our environment to proceed?

Cindy for Congress said "enough is enough" months ago and we would be honored if you would join us in sending a clear message to Congress: No more business as usual. Dozens of San Francisco residents have called or e-mailed our office today. Many "life long" Democrats have informed us they are leaving the party. The "business" of this nation is not "business" it's the people and the people are being oppressed and impoverished while the Bushes and Pelosis of this world prosper." (emphasis added.)

"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/162617/988/739/539282

"@EMStoveken

Hey man... adnoto's yanking your chain.

Between rufus and adnoto it's getting like Swampland around here. I think i need to go drink some lunch...

-- Paul Daniel Ash"

aawwwww. Do you want a cookie? Would that stop yoru constant pc police and complaining?

You've betrayed yourself - you are a troll. Iran has nothing resembling a Navy, little more than speedboats- yet you surmise you're smarter than the Generals who "fixed" the war game. You served over there? Hmmmmm? If so, you weren't paying much attention. Don't respond, I won't.

His first time out of the gate and he folded. I just called the campaign and asked to have my account deleted. I will no longer support him. I guess, for the first time, I will have no dog in the hunt this election cycle. Sadly, I don't think Hillary would have done any better as she has been silent on this issue also.

Adding insult to injury, I recv'd an email from Pelosi today from a DCCC email box, asking for money. That takes a lot of damn gall. Too bad she didn't use that brazeness to squash this abortion called FISA.

I guess now it doesn't matter who wins in November as no matter who it is, they won't uphold the Constitution or truly represent the American people. What a sad day this is.

Lori

0(starting postion) + 1(step fwd) - 2(steps back) = -1 (one step behind your starting position)

I'm trying to help. -- EMStoveken

That is what you call trying to help? Chastising the leaders of the UT "more and better" democrats movement? Pointing out that one step forward and two steps back actually equals -1? Who do you think you are? Well I don't care. I will have to check out the veracity of your claim but I still say more and better democrats. That is the only serious option. Where will we be if we don't elect more of them? Things like this telecom amnesty bill will be the new normal, business as usual if we don't work as hard as we can to elect more and better democrats.

That Obama statement...

-- GlennGreenwald

Well yeah, I do feel like a cartoon character with the head vibrating after haven been hit with a hammer or frying pan.

Zoingggggggggg.....

Just because he will work to get the amnesty provision removed doesn't get him off the hook. He taught at the University of Chicago Law School and knows exactly what he's doing here. This is WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING IN VIOLATION OF OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. If political expediency doesn't stop at the Bill of Rights, then where does it?

From Aziz Huq's writeup over at The Nation:

The bill does no better on privacy matters--the question of new surveillance power. Title I of the measure grants the executive branch new surveillance powers for collecting the communications of persons overseas. Although it contains several provisions that purport to shelter Americans' privacy both at home and overseas, these parts of the bill are rendered irrelevant by the grant of sweeping collection authorization.

Under the bill, the government can create new surveillance programs, each lasting a year, that focus on "persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." Provided that spying agencies do not "intentionally target" someone "known" to be in the United States, or intend to target "a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States" (and with some other minor caveats), large-scale acquisition of data is permitted.

To be sure, the bill then installs judicial review of such collection efforts--but the courts will not examine the actual surveillance programs, let alone individual cases of surveillance. Again, the bill interposes a certification requirement between the court and the facts.

Specifically, the role of judges is limited to ascertaining whether the Attorney General has completed a certification promising that either he has followed the law, or that he will follow the law soon. If the Attorney General cannot meet even this spectacularly low bar, the bill gives the government time to amend and to re-file the certificate. SOMETHING even Alberto Gonzales could manage.

This is a radical break from the FISA regime created in 1978, and risks severe harm to Americans' privacy interests. The most important break with FISA is the absence of any individualized warrant requirement: It is now whole collection programs that are authorized and reviewed. And the abandonment of discrete, individualized legislative authorization and judicial review is only the first of the bill's troubling features.

The new provisions also allow the government to create sweeping new programs that are formally targeted at overseas persons, but that predictably sweep in large. The provision's loose language about targets--who do not in fact have to be overseas, only reasonably believed to be overseas--gives the government substantial latitude in crafting the parameters of its searches. Past experience gives no cause for confidence on this point. If the bill is enacted, Americans could simply no longer have confidence that calls placed or received from abroad would be private.

Democrats have emphasized new Section 102, which affirms that the Act is "the exclusive means" for electronic surveillance for national security ends. But this was the provision in the original FISA that the Bush Administration circumvented. Reenacting a notional rule that has been flagrantly violated for half a decade, and whose violation continues to be defended and even celebrated, is hardly a victory for civil liberties.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/huq

What Obama's essentially saying in his statement is "Trust me." Ummm...no. We're a government of laws, not of men. At least we used to be.