I've done that before. I like it. It's a fun test, honestly.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-5.88&soc=-5.49

My results.

I'm around Nelson Mandela, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, I guess.

That was fun. I'm in the same neighborhood. Probably wouldn't vary much for most posters on this blog, I imagine.

Exactly, if you don't think FISA is the end of the world and justifies childish character attacks, you're "Republican lite." You are a perfect demonstration of what the author is talking about.

Ah, thanks for not letting me down. For a while there I thought I was never going to get the typical reductive misinterpretation of what I said to mean, "any dissension against or opposition to FISA is absolutist."

Those of us who oppose the "compromise" on FISA are not being absolutist by doing so, we are simply agreeing with the Constitution.

Again, missing the point, and once again, focusing directly on FISA, instead of the entire post.

hoppycalif2 said: "That loss may very well be rectified in the next few weeks."

Hoppy, I can tell you, you're calling it right on that observation.

This man has the potential to have America celebrating. He can lift us out of the national depression we've been in and make us see what Reagan promised but failed to deliver on: a national renascence built on unity in diversity, aspirations for the highest, concerns for the smallest, dignity of all, responsibility of all. He is capable of expanding in the office to become a president of historic significance. McCain is a good man, but he does not have that capability. And the times that Bush has brought us to really do demand greatness in our next president.

I had this vision of a commercial or movie segment with Barack on a stage taking the oath of office and a bunch of the founding fathers in their knee breeches and powdered perukes standing by, ghostly fashion, nodding and smiling with the passing of the torch to a man who can redeem the promise of the country they created. And on that same stage, the slaves of that founding era, the children of Africa brought involuntarily here against their will. They too would be smiling and nodding in approval.

Its corny to embarrassing levels I know, but thats the image that came to me today, July 4th. A vision of healing and fulfillment of dreams.

And a nation celebrating.

The vision I have is of a Constitution that has redemptive powers and a law that fulfills and is a safe harbor for human potential, and a President who defends the one and faithfully carries out the other.

I believe Barack Hussein Obama will be that kind of President.

Missing in this post is the realization that the Constitution is inherently absolutist. No branch of the government has a choice about whether or not to follow the Constitution. When it says, as it does,

Because it is fluid.

Hoppy - please, read FISA as it was written. It's sole purpose was to empower the president to authorize warrantless searches. The "protection" was the FISA court - the executive was charged with getting the warrant after the search was already conducted from what was essentially a secret court.

Now if you think that the constitution is absolutist, how could Congress pass such a law? How could it have survived for a long time on the books? It was there long before Bush. Other presidents, including Clinton, used it. They conducted warrantless searches and seizures and then got them rubber stamped after ward.

Short of repealing FISA altogether, which is not going to happen, Congress passed it for a reason - our rights are not going to be fully protected.

Nothing about suing telecoms is going to change that. Exactly nothing. We know that Bush just ignored the requirements to report to the FISA court - that was where the thing went illegal.

I can't claim to be a constitutional lawyer, but con law I and II were my best subjects. I made the second highest grade both semesters in a class of about 250 people.

I can assure you absolutely that the brilliance of the constitution is that it is not absolute - there's room for changing circumstances over time. Otherwise we wouldn't still be here.

I am totally in total support of Sen. Obama. What ever he does is okay by me.

This is an extremist, absolutist doctrine, and it's just wrong. You have to be able to question your leaders and candidates. You should never follow someone without question and under any circumstances. Such a mentality really lives up to the far right who attack Obama Supporters for being "cult-like."

Why do you support him so pasionately? Why do you consider him a progressive force? Whydo you think he has the potential to have the country celebrating?
The last two weeks have shown that he is not progressive. He may not even be liberal. He supports public financing of religious groups, states having the right to impose the death penalty for those who committed crimes considered heinous even if they don't kill the victim, SCOTUS recent gun-control limitations, limits on late-term abortions, makes no timetable for troop withdrawal, says enough provisions in FISA are "necessary" enough to require its passage, welfare reform, expanding the military - what is progressive about those positions?
I caucused for him -- I want him to win. But statements like this make me crazy because I don't see how he has earned this reputation as our best candidate in recent memory. If you have reasons, please le tme know, but support for a candidae, to me, means supporting what he stands for, not supporting the man himself. And what he stands for lately isn't what I hoped to hear.

Oh MAN! I wish I could've been there. Damn rural Vermont...! At least living here allowed me to go to the Unity Rally. Still, I'm envious as hell. That sounds like it was a blast! Did you take pictures, by any chance?

On the local news here they were showing some of the manny parades for the fourth. They showed an Obama float and a McCain one. Both floats got exactly the same reac tion from the crowd. Chants of "Obama, Obama, Obama". I bet that felt good for the people pulling tht float.

In rare circumstances, the President can order temporary surveilance, to be applied for a warrant in a very short time.

Q: When is a warrant not a warrant?
A: When it's provided after the search has already taken place.

Getting a warrant is like asking permission. The FISA court operates under the adage that it's easier to get forgiveness than to get permission.

You're right about what the new FISA is built to allow. And this is what the FISA conversation needs to address. The possible implications are troubling.

And yet, BushCo's duplicity notwithstanding, one can understand how it came to be. Dealing with nation states, rogue or otherwise, is one thing. As president, being confronted with the responsibility of safeguarding a very large and free country from a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack (say a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke) creates some very tricky tightrope walking. As we saw with 9/11, there isn't necessarily going to be a large evidence chain to follow before the fact. There may be no activity whatsoever that is "criminal" in nature on the part of any of the participants, and because of the way cells are structured, it can be difficult to identify all the players. You might roll up 19 of 20 conspirators, and the one you missed is the one who had the bomb. Since intelligence agencies are basically looking for needles in haystacks, they're naturally going to suggest a broad trawling approach for gathering data to preempt an attack. In an ordinary crime, prosecuting after the fact, and assembling a case, is usually satisfactory, even if it doesn't stop a murder, or what have you. But the tradeoffs regarding civil liberties and the scope of the consequences is a fair one. If someone has a suitcase nuke and takes out New York or DC, there won't be a person in America who would forgive anyone in a position of authority for not doing absolutely anything to prevent it.

This is why someone like Obama, who is campaigning to be charged with leading the way in preventing this, might very well see the acceptability of the trade-off inherent in the new FISA. And it might very well be the case that he saw the bill differently before he looked likely to get handed the reins. And he opposed the immunity provision, if I understand correctly, and spoke about stopping that, rather than the total bill. Again, telecom immunity, even investigating Bush for circumventing the FISA court, can quite reasonably seem small potatoes in relation to the overall challenge. My sense is that this is what's going on behind the scenes.

While I am skeptical of the good intentions of anyone who has such unfettered surveillance power, I don't ascribe a more sinister motive to the impetus behind the legislation. Perhaps I'm naive. I would be quite comfortable with this overall bill if the surveillance could not be used to initiate cases for anything other than terrorism, and if anyone accused had recourse to the appropriate safeguards so that they could defend themselves in court. We've seen that mechanism generally succeeds, say in the habeas corpus ruling by the Supreme Court, even if it is slow.

The reason Bush has erred so egregiously regarding the basic spirit of our constitution is because of the stakes and the difficulties of pursuing convictions in the traditional way. Or, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This will, therefore, be an ongoing tension until one can reasonably say the danger has subsided. And, of course, that danger may not substantially subside for a very long time. This is why I wish the conversation would progress to focus on how the president could have all the tools possible while still safeguarding our civil liberties.

Given the 'ticking bomb' scenario, anyone who has watched "24" understands how many Americans will consider arguments about the 4th amendment to be secondary to preventing another attack. You don't have any civil liberties when you're dead. And this is why Democrats are at risk for being perceived as naive. Bloggers have a point about the principle, but they're not the ones who have the responsibility for preventing an attack hanging over their heads night and day for four or eight years. They have the luxury of opining without any responsibility or consequence.