What do you think? I say elements of both. It really is an issue that gets me riled up but it's also not the absolute most important issue on the planet.

One thing that causes obsession about it is its personal nature. Is getting out of Iraq more important in terms of cost to America in lives, dollars and prestige? Yes, yes it is. But I am never going to Iraq. It ain't happening. It's too improbable. Even if they restarted the draft I'm old enough that they'll never get to me.

But my phone calls are being logged and processed. So, it's personal.

I think it's become a destructive, self-destructive distraction and is dividing progressives.

Apparently some people don't remember Voltaire's words about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I say we not devolve into fanatical absolutist zealots on this issue. There are bigger more important issues like health care. I wish all this energy could be spent on that and global warming. Polar bears are drowning. There are children with no health care.

Do you have any idea how dire the situation really is? It's grim and getting worse. Will FISA be a concern when the global climate becomes a total meltdown? Does telecom immunity matter to the cancer patient dropped from coverage?

Even worse, this law can easily be overturned by a future law or the courts. And a Democratic president can shut down the illegal spying and uncover and investigate Bush's crimes. It will require a little patience on our part, but progress require patience.

One of the commentors on that site, conradg, pretty much sums up my view. The 4th Amendment is very important, so are other Constitutional rights, so IN ALL CAPS is habeas corpus! I want Obama to fight to protect all of them ..... and to do it in a smart way so that maybe we can start *winning* some of these battles.

As some of you know from my other long post, I am very skeptical that the immunity provision in FISA, whether it passes or fails, is going to have much impact at all on the 4th Amendment, the telecoms, the government or the customers. That an issue of statutory law, is far removed from defending the Constitution, and looks like a loser anyway. I, at least, am convinced of the wisdom of turning attention elsewhere to something that will actually have some effect (advice for both Obama and for his supporters).

Let's assume (I have no idea) that the rest of the FISA bill is as I have heard it described: a flagrantly unconstitutional intrusion into the 4th Amendment rights of all citizens.

Hmmmmmm ...... If I were a legal stratigist, I would have to weigh the likelihood and benefits of two very different courses of action: 1) fight like the devil to get its provisions changed to something less harmful, more respectful of those rights or 2) let it pass untouched, in all its flagrant unconstitutionality, so that it can then be attacked in the courts. A good, solid Supreme Court ruling that doing X, Y, and Z are unconstitutional and should never, ever be done again is going to give the 4th amendment more protection than any compromise, patched-together statute. To decide what to do in that sitution, you look at how the bill could be changed to make it into a solid protection, the likelihood of achieving those changes (things like how many are supporting this version, the passion with which they are supporting it, etc.) ..... AND .... I'd toss in the fact that if, instead of attacking fighting like crazy to change this bill -- perhaps with no success -- if instead I fought like crazy to win the election, in which case I'd be in an excellent position to see that it was applied constitutionally (whatever it might permit) while getting the AG and Solicitor General and, if there is an opportunity, a couple of new justices on the Sup Ct. and then really go after it to shred the statute to pieces and put solid, permanent or at least long-lasting warning markers beside it's worst abuses.

Of course, if you are thinking that way, you certainly can't announce it (can you imagine the furor?) ..... but it's not a stupid course of action to choose to follow. As that poster said, sometimes a stategic retreat is the step that will get you to the biggest and quick overall success. It comes down to whether we're willing to trust his judgment. And that's a hard thing to ask of people who've been routinely and steadily lied to for 7 years (and longer, frankly).

But I've learned this much about Obama from reading his books, learning what I can about his life before, and watching the campaign very intently. He is a very deep, subtle, crafty and complex thinker. We haven't had anyone like that since JFK. He's simply not going to tell us everything he's going to do or explain everything he is thinking. Sometimes NOT telling or explaining is the most vital ingredient (think Cuban Missle Crisis).

That's why I pick isolated issues and burrow deep (NAFTA-gate was one) --- get all the known facts (many relevant ones will remain unknown), spread them out, look at the big picture and see how his judgment or integrity stacks up.

And destor, I know what you mean about not feeling the immediacy of Iraq - sadly for our country, that is the case. BUT habeas corpus cuts close to the bone for every single one of us. We take it for granted that if we are ever imprisoned, there will be all sorts of protections and court appearances and we'll get to tell our side and be heard by some impartial tribunal. But what if the government could put you in a cell and simply never let you out? Habeas corpus is the ultimate protection against that happening, and we are one fragile life away from having a Supreme Court that does not acknowledge the constitutions very strong recognition that our government is subject to the priviledge of habeas corpus.

I'll be honest, if given the choice, I'd voluntarily turn over recordings of all my telephone calls to anyone who wanted them in exchange for a guarantee that habeas corpus would always be available to me. I have some control over what I say, but if I'm imprisoned, I have no control over my ability to get free.

It's a matter of priorites, and timing, and which fight you chose to fight when. I'm utterly astounded at the number of people who are vehement that they know what Obama should do - right now, this minute! - about telecom immunity but, when asked, couldn't explain why.

BTW, destor, please check that long post of mine -- nice compliment to you being posted shortly.

Interesting article - thanks, chophouse.

Maybe I am missing something or one of you can help explain to me.

But doesnt FISA state that Telecom companies will gain immunity protection(from a civil court) but it DOES NOT state that for a Criminal prosecution, right?

So, telecom companies can be prosecuted in a criminal court still, just not a civil court. But they still get prosecuted.