There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument ...

I'm as disappointed as you at Obama's betrayal, but there is every reason to "destroy the FISA framework", even if that isn't politically acceptable either.

FISA created secret courts, hearing secret evidence, decided by judges appointed by the executive, without review, appeal, or even a public acknowledgement of the "probable cause" grounds for domestic wiretaps. It is a complete abrogation of the Constitution and the rule of law.

The only "FISA" rule that should be adopted by Congress is that no agent of the United States may infringe on the privacy of any domestic [national or international] communication, without a showing of probable cause to believe that a specific person is actually engaged in the commission of a crime.

Period.

(That probably won't happen in my lifetime.)

Here's a note I just wrote to Obama from his senate web site. http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

I suggest that everybody who opposes what he's doing go and write a letter there too. Here's what I wrote:

I was terribly disappointed to hear that you are supporting the new FISA bill. The wiretapping extensions seem wrong, and in violation of the 4th amendment. But the real travesty is the granting of immunity to telccommunications companies. These companies appear to have broken the law, along with the Bush administration. If this is the case, they should be held to account. The granting of immunity will (1) help Bush and co. hide their illegal activities, and (2) send a message that if you do what the president tells you, you cannot get into trouble, even if what he tells you to do is illegal. Such excuses were ruled out in Nuremberg.

I understand that you might not want to speak out fervently against the bill, or that you cannot filibuster it. But voting for the bill will certainly dishearten your supporters, and damage your campaign much more than voting against it.

Glenn says:

Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does ... ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

Oh my yes and how many times have I said some version of that? Just the other day, in a comment at TPM, someone wondered how the Dems could support this bill. I said in response [edited]:

Because they don't see a downside. They see this as taking FISA off the table as something that could be used to accuse them of being "soft on terrorism" while expecting that the people who are now objecting will, come November, vote for them anyway because "god forbid the GOPpers should win." It is cynical in the extreme, but it has worked so far: How many of us are still intending to not vote for Dems because of their failure to stop the war?

Unhappily, though, Glenn then backs away from the meaning of his own words, adopting the hoary and often misleading "two extremes, both bad" framework in which the author, whoever they are, invariably sits in the moderate and presumably reasonable middle, in this case by suggesting that the criticism is valid but rejecting Obama's candidacy because of it isn't.

The problem is, candidates don't care if we criticize them; they only care if we'll give them money and vote for them. Put another way, they only care about our criticism to the degree it affects their ability to get or stay elected - that is, to the degree it has consequences. Saying, as Glenn essentially does, that we can and should criticize Obama for his stand on this heinous bill but it should not ultimately affect our voting for him enables exactly the ability of the campaign to "ignore you and your political interests" the he decried.

For me, this is a deal-breaker and yes, I think it is that important, and yes, I have so informed my representatives in Congress regarding them and the Obama campaign regarding him. In Obama's case, if he does not at minimum appear in the Senate to vote in favor of stripping immunity and then against final passage (regardless of the outcome on immunity), I will not work on his campaign, I will not contribute to his campaign, and I will not vote for him.

I doubt you're reading these by now, but I figured that I should admit I was one of the people who made the mistake of thinking that telecom amnesty was the only significant problem with the new bill. I had gotten that impression from reading your recent posts, but that's my own fault. So I'll happily revise my position and agree with you in light of everything you point out here.

I do think my point about the 'Obamabot' myth still stands. Every campaign cycle there is a new meme that can be mindlessly invoked by uttering a catchy little word. We already saw this happen with 'appeasement'. 'Obamabot' is just another installment in this series, cooked up by bitter Hilary supporters and based on crude stereotypes about the young, urban, and educated. It's not so much that I think it will hurt his electability as that I think it cheapens our political discourse.

Good luck with that.

Thanks.

It's never going to happen because there are so few Democrats driven by principle; in my experience, Democrats use principles like a bottle in a brawl, something to pick up and slam somebody with when it's convenient, and then discard as soon as it's in the way.

You realize you just described the Republicans, right?

This is why Democrats spent half a decade in the 90s explaining to us how lying is a necessary tool of statecraft, but immediately complained about how George Bush lied, even before he took office (and please don't bother with "people died": the complaints about "lies" began long before anybody died.)

Deception has always been a part of statecraft. Its simply a lesson every generation has to re-learn. The Democratic caucus was simply more honest about it.

This is also why Democrats spent the entire decade of the 90s explaining why we couldn't complain about violations of the rule of law because nothing had been proved in a trial court ("innocent until proven guilty"), but spent most of the next decade calling the President and his staff "criminals" when there wasn't even evidence that any crime had been committed, let alone a conviction at trial.

Considering this President has already admitted he ordered violations of US law? Are you suggesting we should disbelieve everything he says?

This explains how Democrats complain about "shredding the Constitution" when they simultaneously applaud a method of Constitutional interpretation that leaves the words of the Constitution without meaning,

I'm speechless. I didn't think it was possible to string those words together in that sequence with a straight face.

and also why they accuse a Republican President of tyrannical expansions of Executive power but applauded far more expansive measures from a Democrat President.

Such butchery of the English language should be declared a crime against humanity. Disgusting.

I'll wage you got your kicks from sticking lit firecrackers into the mouths of frogs.

Obama will act like a Democrat. Any similarity between what he genuinely believes and what comes out of his mouth will be purely coincidental; what he says will be guided by focus groups.

What stunning insight. What profound realization. Let us all bow down to the guru Plumb Bob!

As usual, if they persuade people to their point of view, it will be by lying about what their point of view really is, because they know the public will never accept what they genuinely believe.

And here I thought you'd hit rock bottom back at the start of your comment. I stand corrected.

Ass.