The first amendment. By immunising telecoms against lawsuits the Democratic Congress, Senate and presumptive nominee are taking away the right of individual Americans to petition the government, in the form of civil courts, for the redress of their grievances (As in, violations of their civil rights in the form of the fourth amendment.)

The first amendment does not limit this right simply to grievances against the government.

Hillary was perhaps the more progressive between herself and Obama on the planet Pluto. I'm not sure what alternative universe it is you are inhabiting but I think it's widely understood that Hillary was so middle of the road many still look upon her as a sort of Reagan democrat. A livid liberal she ain't.

Which Constitutional rights will the FISA bill violate?

My understanding is that the 4th amendment rights have already been violated by the telecoms as directed by the executive and the big stink is that this bill grants them retroactive immunity from civil suits.

It gives telecoms immunity but doesn't prevent anyone from suing the government for violations of 4th amendment rights.

My understanding of the bill is that it will require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans overseas, makes it illegal to target a foreigner for the purpose of getting around the FISA court on spying on an American, mandates FISA court to review requests before renewing them, it allows warrantless spying in an emergency but requires the government to file the required papers within a week and prohibits the government from using any emergency powers to go around FISA courts in the future.

Is that about right?

By the way, the Illinois Democratic party is nowhere near as disorganized as the Illinois Republican party.

They aren't. They are thinking the way Democrats always do - like the public is in overwhelming support of their opponents and any dissent is going to cost them votes.

The public has overwhelmingly rejected the Republican party. It overwhelmingly rejected it in 2006, when the Democrats not only won Congress and half the Senate, but didn't lose a single seat.

The public is angry with a president who thinks he is above the law, and this includes the bulk of those calling themselves conservatives.

Heck it is so bad that there is a large movement within the Republican party that is too ashamed to admit it is Republican - on largely anonymous internet forums.

But, here are the Democrats pretending that this isn't what things are like right now. Here you have the Democrats, instead of taking this chance to put in place policies that the party has championed for decades, acting like Republican attack adds are something to be feared.

The only thing that can cost the Democrats in November is the impression that they are weak - and here we have the Democrats acting weak. It is the precise weakness that cost the Democrats in 2004.

If it was about Obama for whatever reason disagreeing with me on FISA, that would be different and that I can reconcile. But it isn't, it is about Obama being afraid of being seen as weak on terrorism, the exact same motivation that led the Democratic Party towards voting for a war in Iraq.

Who wants a president who can't stand firm on his principles, in the face of some hard words in a TV advert being run by his political opposition?

Where to start?

Betraying the Constitution is not some small compromise that one can and should live with. Criticizing the Democratic nominee who has done so is not an example of uncompromising and foolish revolutionary romanticism.

This is a betrayal of core democratic - both small "d" and big "D" - principles.

Obama was never a progressive and the delusions of some of his supporters on this very basic reality is something I've had a hard time understanding.

Still, I could support Obama, albeit unenthusiastically, even if I felt he were the "lesser of two evils," if he stood firm on a few fundamentals. I'm not asking for a lot here. Just standing up for the Constitution. Basic stuff.

But no.

Meanwhile, Hillary is STILL being excoriated, even though she was the more progressive of the two. She gets crap for doing the right thing in the FISA vote. "She would have voted the same way as Obama if she were the nominee."

I call bullsh**. Suppositions like that have no basis in reality; they are a way of avoiding the cognitive dissonance of passionately supporting a candidate whose real stands don't match his True Believer's idealization of him.

Yeah, we can go back to AUMF (it always goes back to AUMF). I was one of those people marching on 2/03. I knew giving Bush any authority would end in disaster, and I was disgusted with the Democrats who voted for AUMF. I still think it was a horrendous decision. But Bush would have gone to war regardless of how Dems voted on AUMF. And most of the Dems voting on AUMF were not voting to go to war. They were voting to give the WH authority that they should not have given the White House, but what they were actually voting for was far short of an endorsement of a unilateral war. I get the impulse to demonstrate that one was strong on national security after 9/11. What I don't get is how any thinking person would believe that George Bush would use this sanction of increased authority wisely. I for one knew that he would not.

Regardless, Hillary's speech on AUMF is instructive. IT is not the warmongering speech that her haters like to pretend it is.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

There is no ambiguity in this vote for the new FISA bill. The entire bill, not just the disputed telecom immunity language, is a shredding of the 4th Amendment and of its implied right of privacy. Moreover, this vote comes in a time when Bush is THE most unpopular President since Nixon. Voting for this bill isn't simply a crime against the Constitution, it is politically stupid, and unnecessary.

I don't get it.

And AKA Smith, I heart you. You are fighting the good fight here.