Defending the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment does not make me a concern troll.

[Tatiana]

Holding politicians accountable, even ones I like, admire, and respect does not make me a concern troll.

I never thought I'd see the day when Arlen Specter http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=a64d90e3-f406-72b5-56ed-fa0512b90a3c&Region_id=&Issue_id=">makes a reasoned and rational argument:

"I am opposed to the proposed legislation because it does not require a judicial determination that what the telephone companies have done in the past is constitutional. It is totally insufficient to grant immunity for the telephone companies’ prior conduct based merely on the written assurance from the administration that the spying was legal."

"The provision that the bill will be the exclusive means for the government to wiretap is meaningless because that specific limitation is now in the 1978 Act and it didn’t stop the government from the warrantless terrorist surveillance program and what the telephone companies have done. That statutory limitation leaves the president with his position that his Article II powers as commander in chief cannot be limited by statute, which is a sound constitutional doctrine unless the courts decide otherwise. Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it."

Please explain to me why we are http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20fisa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">giving the White House a victory when we didn't have to:

With AT&T and other telecommunications companies facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”

“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence.

The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute.

“I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher S. Bond, Republican of Missouri, who led the negotiations.

Let's look at http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm">Sen. Feingold's statement one more time:

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”

So to be clear:

-Neither the House nor the Senate HAD to take up this bill. Democratic leadership CHOSE to take up this bill.

-The President still determines whether spying is legal instead of having a meaningful judicial determination.

-All necessary requirements for wiretapping/spying are contained in the 1978 Act. This bill is not necessary, unless we are trying to let Bush and the telecoms off the hook.

Let's take a look at the actual Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment was written, in large part, as a response to the open-ended "writs of assistance" (general search warrants) the British used to search any person or place an officer deemed suspicious in the American colonies. In the Townsend Act of 1767, the British Parliament legalized (or affirmed the legality of) these writs. These open-ended, invasive, destructive searches were part of the reason America fought for its independence in the Revolutionary War.

So, again, I would like to reiterate that pissing on the Fourth Amendment is a BIG DEAL and I am NOT a "concern troll" for expressing my disdain for those who support, condone, allow, or don't put up a fight against that evisceration.

So what does this have to do with President Obama? I firmly believe, as one who actually LISTENS to his constituency, Sen. Obama http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2">needs to hear our views on this latest resurrection of a FISA bill that threatens the Fourth Amendment.

Obama has been clearly, CONSISTENTLY AGAINST telecom retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping. If the right-wing wanted to attack him on this issue from a national security standpoint, they already have PLENTY of material to work with.

The only thing that makes sense, if Obama is considering voting for the compromise bill (and that is a BIG "IF") is that this is an organized strategy.

Two points:

1) The Republicans forgot to add immunity against criminal lawsuits. If John Edwards is AG, I can totally see him pursuing action against the corporations that did not obtain the proper certification. This could be a reason for supporting the measure if the plan is to have the DOJ go after the telecoms.

2) This looks like a done deal. If Obama and the other Senators who are clearly against the telecom immunity manage to get the bill killed in the Senate, Obama will become a hero to the progressive base, he will earn a great deal of political capital/power, AND he will earn the respect of many independents/libertarians for defending the Fourth Amendment in the wake of enormous opposition and odds.

This is strategy; I'm just not sure what the exact plan is. I will still support Obama no matter the outcome, but it would be nice to see our Presidential nominee continue to highlight the differences between himself and McCain, while reaffirming his record of taking the tough, but correct stand on important issues (the gas tax suspension and dialoguing with our "enemies" come to mind).

I believe Americans respect a leader who makes the case for being on a different, but right side of an issue.