For you very interesting questioning of just what it is we are supposed to do, given our limited choices and our political landscape.

Silash, I called Bob Casey's office on Friday and also called Arlen Spector's to thank him for his promise to vote no on the telecom immunity clause. Please call or send a fax. It is the least we can do.

Another PA voter

Wesley Clark is all over TV "defending" his position and cable shows are discussing McCain's "qualifications" and asking the question, is being shot down and a former POW a qualification for being President?

Obama distances himself and holds no baggage but the conversation is out there.

And this is BAD?

-- peeps1

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 11:51 AM

Word.

Glenn,

Obama's shift on the FISA bill troubles me too, and I agree with your point about the danger it poses for our political culture (especially the lost opportunity it represents). I have another worry about the shift, though, that extends beyond Obama's public image. The danger I have in mind is the possibility that Obama's true position on the issue may be subtly changed by the public stance he takes. (This worry assumes that Obama's prior opposition to the FISA bill was sincere, of course.) Perhaps the change would be the result of "cognitive dissonance", created by advocating one position on a national stage while believing another. Perhaps it would be the result of surrounding himself with people who agree with his public position, so that the range of views he engages is narrowed. (In fact, taking a public position may create pressure on a politician to do just that. To the extent he surrounds himself with advisors who disagree with his public positions, the electorate may suspect the public positions aren't sincere, thus undermining the original point of taking those positions.) But no matter the explanation, any such change would have troubling implications for Obama's view of presidential power more generally.

I've been "hopeful" about Obama, primarily as a counterweight to the expansive claims of executive power advanced by the Bush administration. But that hopefulness is being eroded.

Dear Friend:

For the last nine months, when retroactive immunity has surfaced, we have been able to delay its passage.

We were able to stop it in December because I had an army behind me.

Two months later, it stalled again -- this time in the House.

And last week, we managed to delay action one last time.

But when the Senate returns from the July 4th recess, we will vote on FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that may have illegally helped the Bush administration spy without warrant.

It's a bad bill and we need action to stop retroactive immunity from becoming law.

I've introduced an amendment with Senator Feingold to strip immunity from the bill.

This amendment has the support of Majority Leader Reid and Senator Obama, but it needs 51 votes to pass.

Will you sign on as a citizen co-sponsor of our amendment?

Sign on now! [click on sig, the link I got in the email to me is there; doesn't seem to be customized to me]

Together, we can prevent this assault on our Constitution.

Let's do it one more time. With your help, we can stop the further erosion of the rule of law.

We'll be in touch soon.

Chris Dodd

8374 Members as of right now, within striking distance of the #3 slot by EOB PDT today. Thanks for the plug, Glenn.

Frankly speaking I see a man that gives speeches by locations, sometimes forgetting where he last spoke. It's a obvious fact that our Country is populated by many different races, and religous cultures, and Obama is trying to make them all happy. How about a speech as to who he really is and what he really intends to do if he wins the Presidency. This leads me to believe he is just another smooth mouthed politician with a Muslim name, and not very good insight as to the church he attends.

Sorry, my cut and paste got mangled in my last letter. Click my name for link to MyBO group.

I don't mean to get off-topic, but I emailed my senator to vote against the FISA bill and this is what she sent. I thought Glenn and the rest of you would find this response from her insightful because she is one of the Democrats that's caving, and she's supposed to offer an alternative to Kit Bond, my other senator, on this issue. If you read nothing else, this is her key statement:

"I just don’t think we should punish these companies for their good-faith reliance on government assurances that they were assisting in a legal effort to combat terrorism. If the government violated our surveillance laws by eavesdropping without the necessary warrants, then it is the Administration – not the telecoms – that needs to be held accountable."

I emailed her back Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's (the Republican appointee presiding over the case) ruling that “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

Of course she did not respond to the second email. Anyway, here is her full response:

Thank you for contacting me regarding efforts to revise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as FISA. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On February 12, 2008, after months of debate, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S.2248) by a vote of 68-29. I voted in favor of this effort to modernize the 30-year-old FISA in order to allow us to effectively monitor terrorist communications overseas.

As the FISA Amendments Act was debated on the Senate floor, I voted in favor of three amendments introduced by Senator Feingold (D-WI), all of which sought to add further safeguards against Executive Branch surveillance on innocent Americans. Unfortunately, these amendments failed to garner enough votes to pass. However, the Senate-passed FISA Amendments Act does include several measures to improve our national security without violating the constitutionally protected privacy rights and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. For example, it would require the government to obtain a warrant whenever the target of surveillance is a U.S. citizen as well as bolster the authority of the FISA courts to oversee the eavesdropping activities of the National Security Agency.

As you may know, I joined 18 other Democrats in voting against Senator Dodd’s (D-CT) amendment to remove provisions granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies (telecoms) that cooperated with the Bush Administration’s wiretapping program. Please keep in mind that this is a limited immunity that applies solely to the telecoms, not the government. I just don’t think we should punish these companies for their good-faith reliance on government assurances that they were assisting in a legal effort to combat terrorism. If the government violated our surveillance laws by eavesdropping without the necessary warrants, then it is the Administration – not the telecoms – that needs to be held accountable. That’s why I supported Senator Specter’s (R-PA) amendment, which would have substituted the federal government in place of telecoms as the defendant in lawsuits, allowing existing legal actions to move forward in an appropriate manner. While this measure was rejected, the underlying legislation would still allow citizens to sue the government for past violations and telecoms for future violations of the new law. As your United States Senator, I remain determined to get to the bottom of any government misconduct.

Currently, the Senate-passed FISA legislation needs to be reconciled with the House-passed version. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues to debate this important issue.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future regarding other matters of interest or concern to you.

All best,

Senator Claire McCaskill