Just goes to show you: all the die-hard lefties are just as group-thinked as the die-hard righties.

Only the lefties don't like that label "group-thinked".

Good post, chophouse.

Efforts to portray this as trolling, or talking family business out into the street are ill considered and reflect a failure of arguments on the merits of accepting the FISA bill.

You're right, though I'm not so sure the troll-spotting is as simple as ultra-sensitive TPMers reacting to any criticism of Obama. Having the freedom to criticize Obama for things he does is welcome and natural, and a healthy part of the political engagement of citizens we should strive for (and which the Obama campaign encourages).

However, people who dislike Obama on a personal level, who believe they have special insight because they intuit character flaws and then indulge in fleshing out their fantasies about the nefarious inclinations that really motivate him--well, there's a chance they'll be called out for trolling.

When it comes to trolls, here's how I see it: there are people who are emotionally invested, for whatever reason, in finding ways to dilike what Obama says, does, doesn't say, doesn't do--they will just dislike Obama. These people will try to persuade others to dislike Obama as well.

People who aren't emotionally invested in disliking Obama are the ones to consider and persuade--with a positive message, or with the truth when lies are being spread.

All other conversation that is thoughtful discussion of current political events is a good thing. The page you linked to on Obama's website is a great idea. Go for it!

What I don't get is why I can expect my Congressman to vote against the FISA bill and he does and why I can support a consisently principled guy like Feingold who has a long track record of voting the way I want Democrats to vote on a number of issues - and still be cast as some kind of flake because I have the same expectation of Obama. I know you are for "change". I'm for some specific issues. I'm not a single issue voter but I do have several that matter much more than others. Obama doesn't have a long track record so when he disappoints on one of those issues it is significant.

This extremely strong reaction to Obama’s “betrayal” and failure to hold firm and filibuster giving the telecoms retroactive immunity would seem a lot more principled (and make a lot more sense) if someone could explain why such immunity matters.

Seriously.

Russ Feingold says that information declassified by the Senate Intelligence Committee already indicates that the companies got written requests stating the activity (turning over the records) was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.

Thus, if there has to be judicial review to determine this before a lawsuit could be commenced, as Feingold says, “immunity is virtually guaranteed”

But he doesn’t go one step further and think what it means if there is no retroactive immunity and the telecoms get sued.

That very same fact - that they were turning over the records in response to written orders that such action was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful – would defeat liability! And there wouldn't be all that juicy discovery everyone is talking about because this is such a solid and legally-accepted defense that it would, without doubt, be the subject of an immediate motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

So what – please – is all the fuss about? Maybe Obama just wised up to the fact that retroactive immunity isn’t a big deal because even without it, it is almost certain that the telecoms would –very quickly – be found not liable.

If you are going to draw a line in the sand and insist that your candidate be "principled" and "stand up for the Constitution" and so on, please take the time to be sure that it's on an issue that makes sense.

Roe v Wade makes sense -- habeas corpus makes sense. Getting a Supreme Court that continues to recognize these very important rights -- that have concrete, real-life meaning makes sense.

So far no one has been able to convince me (and I am listening) that retroactive immunity under FISA -- or lack thereof -- means diddly-squat. Are we getting this exercised about Obamas stand on that issue, or any change on that issue, just because MSM says it's an important one???

If the importance of retroactive immunicty is so great, then it can be easily explained, If it can't be easily explained ..... then maybe it's not so important. I thought TPM and places like this were where you could ask questions and get real answers, not just take positions and thunder.

But, qusar, that's still not answering my question about immunity: What, as a practical, real-life matter, does the immunity provision do? Why should it be opposed? Why is it important that Obama do so? Why is he to be doubted and disparaged if he does not?

That's a pretty straightforward question, even if it just focuses on a part of the bill. And the answer is not "but the other parts of the bill are bad" or "the government ignored other parts of the existing law" or "signing statements and overriding OLC opinions are dangerous" (tho I certainly agree on some of those).

Here's my problem. I care a lot more about habeas corpus and a number of other things than I do about FISA. As pointed out above, FISA has been around for a long time and will undoubtedly remain - it would just be nice to have a President complies with its provisions.

For some (unknown to me) reason, however, Obama's position on FISA, specifically his presumed "caving in" on the immunity provision -- is being used to undermine his support, discourage his supporters, call his character and judgment into question and all the rest.
Fair enough. Asking questions of authority, questioning the positions of a candidate is A GOOD THING.

So, while I don't care a great deal about FISA (habeas corpus, which is only barely alive today, is a lot more significant to me and a far greater threat than the worst FISA bill would be), I DO care about Obama's character and judgment and whether he has support and whether that support is enthusiastic. So I started asking the questions I would ask if I did share everyone else's concern about FISA and telecom immunity.

The next logical step in deciding what one thinks about any position -- in this case his newly-announced position that he doesn't consider the immunity provision a deal-breaker -- is to figure out what it means. In this case. what does the immunity provision do? why it's important? why is it so important that Obama fight it?

I looked, I asked questions, I read Feingold and others who say immunity is a bad thing ...... and for the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone cares!!!! Everyone, including chophouse, SAYS it's important, but so far no one has been able to explain WHY it's important. What is going to be different if the telecoms don't get immunity? Well, obviously, they can be sued -- but what happens then? As far as I can see, all the lawsuits would be quickly dismissed. So how are "the people" better off with there being no immunity? Is that difference worth a fight?

Based on what I've been able to figure out and find out, I've concluded that his judgment in NOT making a fight-to-the-finish stand on the immunity provision now is very sound. (If anything, I question his previously going along with Feingold and others in making out like it was crucial. But perhaps, like me, he just took the word of others that it was important and then when he looked closer, realized that it wasn't.)

So I wrote out my reasons for reaching that conclusion so that those of you who are questioning his judgment, or assuming that it's bad or a "cave in," that it's of such importance that it "hits a nerve" will point out where I went wrong.

Bottom line: it's fine, it's a wonderful thing, to question the positions of your candidate. But the next step after questioning is to find an answer to those questions. Otherwise, it's just empty chattering or, well, an effort to discourage support by innuendo. Which, I think, is how the discussion of trolls got into the mix.

Obama, Obama, Obama. Can we please bitch about McCain for change? I'll start: John McCain is a Republican troll

The problem with defending "a woman's right to choose" with either the phrase "a man telling you what you can do to your body" or the phrase "the government telling you what you can do to your body" is that, as Roe v. Wade very forcefully recognized, "a woman" is not making a choice simply about what to do "to her body". She is making a choice as well about what to do to "a potentiality of human life". Roe v. Wade recognized that "the state" has a legitimate interest in protecting that "potential", and held that the right of the state to intervene in what "a woman does to her body" increases as the "potential for human life" comes closer to birth. So, pace quasar, actually it "really" is "that hard to come to a conclusion about the issue" of abortion, unless one is willing to ignore "the potential for human life" that is ended by "a woman's choice" regarding "what to do to her body". And as to Obama and FISA, his defenders on this issue might want to read Glen Greenwood's detailed analyses before becoming too critical of positions such as chophouse's. And of course it's not just FISA -- it's also doing "everything" -- "everything" -- "everything" to keep Iran from obtaining a nucler weapon (on which compare Martin Van Creveld, "Israel’s leading military historian", who finds it both inevitable and not a problem that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons: like Israel, "'they are going to build nuclear weapons without admitting it,’ he said. ‘And I don’t see this made the world into a worse place. I am convinced the outcome is going to be a balance of power and I personally think that a nuclear Iran may not be such a bad thing for the world'" He may be right or he may be wrong, but he is at least not going to Washington to pledge his subservience to AIPAC. And then there's his criticism of Kennedy v. Louisiana (Held: the death penalty cannot be constitutionally imnposed for the crime of raping a child) (PS -- never mind that the strength of the record on actual guilt, and the conduct of the state in general in this case is, shall we say, deeply troubling). So it's not trolls, and it's not Republicans, who are very fearful of an Obama presidency -- and believe me, it's Obama's increasingly clear likeness to the Clintons, not my (non-existent) support of either Clinton, that drives my concern.

Elizabeth2, it is not a long established defense to a tort claim to show that the President of the United States told you to commit the tort. That is precisely what "all the fuss is about". The issue of telecom immunity is far less about the financial cost to the telecoms of a judgment against them than it is about ending the unlawful action of the executive branch. For that reason there's not much, other than staving off a war against Iran, that's much more important.

I thank you, Hector. Sincerely. I'm inching my way there. Even - well, especially - if I came late to the discussion, I'd think there would be an explanation (of why this immunity is such a bad thing) all worked out.

You state: "it is not a long established defense to a tort claim to show that the President of the United States told you to commit the tort"

Well, actually, it is. Simple example: Accident up ahead, policeman tells you to drive across someone's lawn to get your car out of the way so an ambulance can pull in. Owner of the lawn later sues you for trespass and destruction of property. You have an absolute defense: "I was complying with lawful authority." (And, in fact, if you refused to comply by committing those particular torts, then you could have been in trouble.)

Here, even Russ Feingold acknowledges that the telecoms are already immunized by law when they "respond in good faith to a government request, as long as that request meets certain clearly spelled-out statutory requirements."
----- And he has also acknowledged that the telecoms were given written directives that said all the magic words, something to the effect that release of the information was required by the President and that it was lawful. --- and the fact that there wasn't a warrant attached isn't determinative because the law allowed for the gov't to get after-the-fact warrants.

So ..... in this scenario ..... what are some actions by the telecoms that could hypothetically lead to liabiity? And if there aren't any, then isn't this whole dispute about immunity meaningless?

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but the more I poke and probe and try to find some meat on the bones of this issue .. I really have to wonder. Apparently immunity became an issue in the first place because the White House insisted on including it in the bill, correct? And of course since Bush wants it, we have to oppose it with all our might. Of course. Pavlovian response almost.

Makes one wonder if they just tossed it in as red meat for everyone to fight over the, neatly distracting attention from the other, more substantive provisions of the FISA bill and from other alternatives for going directly after the government itself (for example, under 42 USC 1983)...... That's probably far-fetched, but I do hope Karl Rove isn't sitting in a corner somewhere laughing his head off as we tear apart each other AND OUR CANDIDATE over something that has no real-life meaning or impact.

And, for the record, I think the threat to habeas corpus is quite a bit more dire than this (tho I certainly agree with you about Iran). ----- The 4th Amendment is a limitation on government, not on private businesses. It is the government, not the telecoms, that is charged with protecting all of our rights. And it's the government that clearly acted illegally in this situation. --- So I wonder, again, why are we talking about the telecoms.