Why bother listening to NPR?? I'd just as soon have Charlie Black lobby me for an hour.. :/

And on that note, let's have a little gem from the past:

DOBBS: Well, you know, lobbyists, no one rails against them more than I do as you know Charlie. The criticism of having so many lobbyists in the McCain campaign, what is the response?

BLACK: “Where are they?” is the response. If you look at the senior staff, the top 12, 15, 20 people of the McCain campaign, there’s no one other than me who was a lobbyist — a currently active lobbyist. Now I am not. I don’t know what the criticism is.

I still wish Obama would call out McCain for his campaign being a puppet on the strings of lobbyists and special interests, but I suppose there's time as yet.

the end effect of the thing is to reduce transparency, and that includes the transparency of whatever motivations congressmen would have to support it. This bill is all about backroom activity and how to keep it unaccountable to anyone, all under the guise of 'national security'.

I disagree. It restores the oversight which Bush removed and puts the courts, and transparancy, back in effect.

from another article:

"Mr. Obama nailed it the other day when he explained his new position -- "that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people," says the Washington Post. And why is Mr. Obama so right about the FISA bill?

which is the ugliest part of this, Obama has adopted Bush's security trumps the law stance. Ugly.

once upon a time, he said "Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand."

Once upon a time he said, "No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed."

Once upon a time he said, " Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient."

"You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law."

"And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security. "

I really doubt this last one now.

Before any of you commit hari-kari (or homocide) over this, can I ask that you read or at least glance through my extensive effort to find out, in some factual way, why telecom immunity even matters. If you are going to abandon a remarkable candidate (or at least lose enthusiam for him), please do so over something that MATTERS, okay?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/serious-question-really-why-is.php

This only addresses immunity, not the rest of the bill, but I wonder how that would look if people really put their spectacles on and got down to the facts. I'm fully prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he is doing.

And, by the way, how is McCain voting on FISA? What sort of judges will he put in to interpret the provisions of FISA (and other things ... like the Constitution)?

With FISA, the telecoms DID break the law as it existed at the time.

That's a very difficult case to prove. The President of the United States gave them instructions to do what they did. If that issue comes up in court and the plaintiffs lose (which they most likely will) you've opened a very nasty can of worms regarding executive privilege and power. I know this is a very simple, black-and-white affair on DailyKos and D.U. and wherever else people are discussing it, but in the real world, this is FAR from easy. And the long-term implications of losing the telecom immunity cases could far outweigh the benefits of trying them.

First you need to prove that the president broke the law. That's all that matters to me. I want the bastard to go into his old age a disgraced criminal. But prosecuting the telecoms is NOT the way to get there.

Reece - I'll respond because you've take the time to ask some honest question. But if you care enough to post about this issue and, implicity, to encourage others to join you in becoming disillusioned with Obama, then don't you have a responsibility to find out the relevant facts first? Please read the comments below my long post (you can skip the post itself because most is rehashed). A lot of people did a lot of hard thinking about this issue.

I'll grant that for the most part, you are talking about something different: most of your comments address the other provisions of the FISA bill, not just retroactive immunity - which is all I wound up looking at (on the theory that you start with the more concrete, less complex part first because it's easiest to understand - wrong!). But you do say that Obama's stance is "immunizing Bush's law breaking" which I assume is a reference to the immunity provision.

But it's really the telecoms that would be immunized, and my question is whether whether in fact they did anything that could make them liable. In other words, why do they need the immunity? Why is it so important not to give it to them?

If there isn't any likelihood that the telecoms would ever be found liable for *anything,* then perhaps folks might want to reconsider their condemnation of Obama on this point. Frankly, if he's refusing to take the time to filibuster a meaningless provision that's going to pass anyway, I applaud his good common sense: more important that he keeps working at getting elected.

A couple of your statements about the law aren't accurate. Maybe that's where the misunderstanding comes in:
---- "I don't have a clue how you can reach the conclusion you reach and be a lawyer at the same time."

Why is that? EVERY lawyer, and every judge, makes evaluates the likelihood that a lawsuit will be successful as a basic first step everytime and any time they are presented with a case.
If you came to me and said "I want to sue the man in the moon", I would tell you to shop right there, explain about the problem of serving him with court papers, point out that there's no court that has jurisdiction over him, and that it would be virtually impossible to collect money damages even if you won. In otherwords I could tell you your case had no viability without even knowing why you were suing him .... and without having to break it to you that he's imaginary.
would ponder the likelihood of effecting service, finding a court with jurisdiction over the case, collecting any money judgment and (without your even telling me WHY you want to sue him), I'd tell you you have just about no chance in the world of being successful.
When someone moves to dismiss an action, a judge will read the complaint and, without anything more, say "dismissed" if there are not factual allegations that set forth a cause of action on which recovery can be had.

That's why when I wanted to find out how important this telecom immunity I asked what facts were going to be alleged in the suits against them ............ and no one could tell me. Can you?

----- "Maybe the plaintiffs lose ultimately, but what's wrong with having the suit?"

Nothing.

What is wrong (in my eyes) is putting Sen. Obama's campaign in peril because 1000s of his own supporters are (in essence) calling him names, when the value of that "change to have their day in court" that he's giving up on is totally unknown. -- I don't support telecom immunity. What I oppose, if you will, is slicing and dicing the best candidate we have (or have had in a long time) for president over this issue.

I'm not asking why oppose it; I'm asking why is it *important* to oppose it? Certainly everyone can have their day in court. BUT - if the day in court is likely to last about 15 minutes and end in a dismissal of the case even before there was any discovery --- then how important is it to fight for the right to sue them?

>>>>"For in this case, we have a company that very likely broke the law"

Not necessarily. It's back to square one. Pretend you're an AT&T customer. What facts are you going to allege against the telecoms that, if proven, would constitute a violation of the law? No one seems to know.

That was my question in that long thread: "What did the telecoms do for which they could be held liable?" ..... And no one knew. (destor23 came up with one guess that would work and I hypothsized another, possibly two ... but they had to assume things, about the law or the telecoms actions, that no one has ever mentioned.)

>>>"[retroactive immunity occurs] only when a judicial decision changes a rule of law that applies to other cases." and "No matter what, you can't be held liable for an act that was legal at the time it was performed."

Neither of these statements is accurate, I'm afraid. In civil law (not criminal law, where there can be no ex post facto laws) the law that governs a case is the law that is applicable when the case is decided, not when the defendant acted. More often than in judicial decisions, actually, legislatures will recognize the unfairness of this and establish an "effective" date on which the change in law will apply and/or will specify whether it applies to cases then pending. But I can assure you -- absolutely because I've worked on some of the cases -- in many, many cases, someone has been held liable or escaped liability when the result would have been different except for a change in the law between their actions and the date the case was decided. The courts say "without certainty there can be no fairness" or some such, but what they mean is "tough luck". (I remember the first one of these cases I came across in law school --- I was outraged and went around saying "but, but, but" for a few days.)

But that, of course, is beside the point. The real question is why Obama's failure to filibuster retroactive immunity (in addition to being a futile gesture) is such a grevious breach of trust. ------- And, you know, the most frequent and perhaps the most honest answer I received was "because Bush says it's important, that the telecoms want it, that he'll veto a bill if it doesn't contain immunity."

To that I can only respond 1) who believes Bush tells the truth when he says anything? and 2) who thinks Bush is smart enough to figure out for himself if there is really a threat to the telecoms or not? There just has to be a better reason than "Bush said so" - that's never been good enough for me, no matter what the issue.

And the FISA immunity provision could not, in any event, "immunizing Bush's law breaking." It applies only to the telecoms. The government is still a defendant in those law suits, for statutory violation, and they are also potentially liable under 42 USC 1983. In fact, with the telecoms out of there, things would be worse, not better, for Bush & Co.

What's done is done -- the loud, attention-grabbing protests have been launched, FISA is going to pass anyway, and if certain individuals want to conclude that Obama was a traitor, or slimy politician, or whatever, for voting as he did, so be it. As someone said "We get the government we deserve."

But I am, honestly, utterly amazed that so many people would turn their back on their own candidate and take steps to harm his campaign without being able to say, in practical terms, why what he is doing is so bad. If it was after the election, no problem - that's what happens to people after they are in office. But to feel so strongly about something you can't explain that you would risk John McCain being elected ..... I just don't get it.