Yeah, hey. How you doin'? Um, listen, I'm kind of nervous to meet you. Out in public, ya know. Heh heh. I mean, you're famous. And shit.

Anyway, I have some information for you. Lemme just look down the alley here, left and...

OK. So, here it is: the telecommunication companies own both parties.

Got it? You heard it? OK. So, cool. All right then, man, I'm gonna go. Love your column. Good luck.

See ya.

They should be indicting and impeaching and instead the compliant congress is still giving in.

Where is our leader Obama is he just standing silent on this?

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

...and that's not even speculating about what kind of leverage against opposition lawmakers the executive might have been able to collect with a massive program of warrantless wiretapping. Ahem.

Electing Obama is a necessary step to rolling back some of this nonsense, but it's not even a fractional percentage of sufficient. Give your money to ActBlue, starve the DNCC of donations, and most of all remember the names of the fuckers who tried to sell us down the river. Reid and Pelosi will continue to let this happen as long as they aren't afraid for their jobs.

there has to be a difference...if that doesn't work then talk about the Supreme Court.

Yeah! Thats it!! We need to elect democrats to protect the supreme court..because they might not be trustworthy on anything else, but they wouldnt do something shady to the court would they?

OH no...we have to vote democrat we have to....duhhhhhhhhhhhhh....drooooolllll....

Did you see where Obama has taped an ad for one of the worst blue dogs--Barrow(GA) who is being challenged from the left in a primary..and Barrow didn't even endorse him for President until after he won the GA primary.

I do support Obama and share your hope that electing him will be a first step...but I think we've got to send a loud, loud message to the Dems--see also
http://thestrangebedfellows.com/

(good name for readers here, don't ya think?)

C.Hong @10 --made me grin

It's not their job to protect our rights, and any case predicated on an false assumption was never going anywhere in a real court of law. The telecoms had the right to ask for warrents if they felt like it, but it was never incumbent upon them to do so. The government asked them to do something and they did, and for anything short of Nueremberg-level crimes, that is defense enough.

So by all means be unhappy at the very real expansion of government power. And by all means be unhappy that your party has lost this game of political theater. But don't confuse yourself into thinking that, absent this law, any telecom was ever going to get punished for cooperating with the government.

Yes, the erosion of privacy rights is the greater issue; however --my objection to the telecomm immunity is NOT that they won't be punished {I agree that material punishment was never going to fall on a corporation doing what legitimate govt.reps. requested} but the immunity will remove 'standing' for a-n-y investigation of or accountability from this administration.

Perhaps the most important concession that Democratic leaders claimed in the proposal was a reaffirmation that the intelligence protocols are the “exclusive” means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts that “that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Oh, well done! Thing is, now that he's been handed this legislation on a silver bloody platter, he doesn't need to bother circumventing it. They seem to have missed that point entirely.

LCM: Agreed on all points, really. Like I said, necessary but very far from sufficient. He may be the best that the party currently has to offer on the national level, but he's still from and of the party.

The last 8 years have piled up an epic mountain of shit in this country. It's going to take a good long time to shovel it all away.

I mean, it's not like they're going to make all of Bush's and Clinton's papers secret until they both die ... oh, wait, they will.

WHO VOTED FOR IT!?!

See also: EFF: House Caves, Approves Fake 'Compromise' on Telecom Immunity

Yep, I bet it doesn't poll well with normal voters. I bet many don't know about it at all.

I don't care. Majority rule can be a very bad standard for civil liberties. Lots of folks don't like illegaly obtained evidence being excluded, lots of folks right now don't like this sissy, newfangled "habeus corpus" that gives terrorists more rights than NAZIS!

And lots of folks just don't like civil liberties at all, 'cuz they're like, always being used by annoying dissidents and accused criminals.

David, you are correct, it's not the telecoms' jobs to protect our freedoms. It is, however, their responsibility to obey the law. Still, you've got to have sympathy for them, they are naive folks, and if they needed legal advice, just who could they turn to? I mean, other than all of the lawyers already on their payroll.