No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.

- Barak Obama

Very well-said, Tena. And the longest comment, every from our friend from the Southwest. We need more of this from you.

To me the issue of telecom immunity matters only in that civil lawsuits against the telecoms were our best chance of revealing the scope and nature of the eavesdropping. Bush has argued executive privilege and state secrets to every congressional attempt to uncover the basic facts of what was done. They argued state secrets in the civil case too, but at least you could have multiple suits in multiple courts and have a better chance of a sympathetic judge.

Maybe it becomes less relevent as Bush leaves office, but I don't think we should just place blind trust in Obama (or, much less, McCain) to fix all the constitutional overreaches of the Bush administration outside of the public eye.

On the other hand, I personally don't think a private company should be put in the position where it has to defy the federal government to uphold the constitution, and if it doesn't, it is liable. When if they had just defied the government, they could probably have faced charges of obstruction. We assume the major telecoms had boatloads of lawyers to evaluate the legal underpinnings of the requests, but the Patriot Act also includes the ability to impose gag orders which prevent the recipient of a national security letter from even consulting with an outside lawyer. I am sure that under the patriot act, many more companies have violated the 4th amendment, but it is unfair to expect a video rental store or a library or a landlord to have (in-house) the constitional law background to take on the Department of Justice.

Tena: This may or may not appear in order as a reply to your post. Never mind.
Your FISA analysis was cool, clear, and succinct -- and, therefore, refreshing. Please consider posting it as a separate blog. Or not. In any case, thanks.