"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," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said in an e-mailed statement.

"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."

Unless this all part of a brilliant plan to popularize the campaign of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and thereby win some extra states, Obama is making a big mistake in moving to the right of Arlen Specter. And even if it is a political move, the FISA debate is about bedrock principles of constitutional rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Political dodges and maneuvers are inappropriate.

But here's an honest question. Who is saying this bill is good and necessary? Look around. Is anyone saying that who is not implicated in the wrongdoing? The New York Times thinks it is a terrible bill. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee (Sen. Specter) thinks it's a terrible bill. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Sen. Leahy) thinks it is a terrible bill. The ACLU thinks it is a terrible bill. The entire blogosphere thinks it is a terrible bill. Who thinks it is a good bill?

Even Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer are not saying it's a good bill. They're calling it a good compromise or whatever. It's bad law. It's wrong to support this bill. Listen to Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH):

"While I understand the need for intelligence security, I am concerned that the bill would take away many 4th amendment rights from Americans as well as provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies," said Rep. Tubbs Jones. "I find the provision that permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the U.S., without individual warrants or even a showing of possible cause that they may have broken the law particularly troubling.

You think?

"Additionally the fact that the legislation permits only minimal court oversight undercuts the role of the FISA court and trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after an application is denied by the court."

Why would any sane person support such tyranny?