I have been reading that this capitulation, immunity for the telecoms is going to be "tied" into the Iraq funding bill..going through Congress today and tomorrow..and they have conveniently tied into THAT bill, immunity (for all) from prosecution for War Crimes and torture...hows that, for a swift kick to the Constitution..no wonder so many Democratic are capitulating..many of them could be prosecuted for war crimes themselves, (aiding and abetting, obstruction, knowledge, etc.)
But lets just argue pro or con about off-shore drilling...while the really big stuff sneaks its way through Congress.......

Thank you to Feingold (love that guy) and others, gives me a glimmer of hope for our party, a glimmer....

I wouldn't be quite so harsh on the Democratic leadership as many have been. The problem lies with the Blue Dog Democrats who are ready to vote with the Republicans for the even-worse Senate bill. The line Pelosi must walk is to offer a bill that will attract these votes. Otherwise it will fail and the Senate bill will pass.

The logic that this bill must pass...is total crap! I am not giving any more money to the DNC and I will not fund any member of congress who votes for this bill or any bill that contains this legislation in it! I want every last elected official who votes to give away our civil rights to be out of congress! My local congressman Rep. Schuler of NC is the worst of the Blue Dogs and I am emabarrassed I worked to get him elected to oust a republican. Hoyer, I will be working to get rid of you and I hope MD voters will jion me in this effort. How undemocratic can you be, Steny???

I guess the telecoms have got to them with their campaign bucks! This is a sad sad day!

Obama is the head of the Democratic Party. If he's against it, then the bill will not make it to the floor. Few Democrats will want to be labeled as the ones who lost Obama a bunch of votes to help out Bush and the telecoms. These issues are too big to be made on the advice of a not so popular outgoing administration. They should be left to the next President and his Attorney General, whoever they are.

I am a very enthusiastic Obama supporter, and I am half expecting, half hoping he will speak out about this outrage.
The issue has never been about the Telecom companies. Rather, the issue is whether the trials can move forward in which case at least SOME of the Fed Judges will compel discovery. Then we will have proof of Bush's criminal conduct. We simply CANNOT allow him to get away with another free pass!
If Obama does not speak out against this today, I feel we should hold him to accounts. This is precisely the kind of issue where we need a courageous voice to speak out against the Bush corruption.
BTW you naysayers-unless you are Republican trolls, you should take no pleasure if Obama does NOT speak out. This is for ALL of us who are Dems and favor the Rule of Law!

Received 6/19/2008 11:05 AM
Dear Parent55,

Thank you for contacting Obama for America about the proposed legislation to give phone companies legal immunity for past wiretapping. Senator Obama holds strong opposition to this special interest provision is frustrated that the President and his supporters in Congress continue to push it. This fight is just one more example of why things in Washington must change.

Senator Obama has consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was in regard to the conduct of the Iraq war or its restrictions on our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs or suspension of habeas corpus. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and rejecting this unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity is a good place to start.

Giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies is simply wrong. Thankfully, the most recent effort to pass this legislation at the end of the legislative year failed. Senator Obama unequivocally opposes granting immunity. Senator Obama cosponsored Senator Dodd's proposal in order to remove it from the current FISA bill.

This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When Senator Obama is president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, Senator Obama will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

Thank you again for contacting Obama for America.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

I agree, Greg, that this was worth fighting. There are two points. First, the bill does almost nothing to prevent the government from continuing to spy on ordinary Americans with no connections to terrorism. This is why both Feingold & Leahy remained opposed.

Second, this was never about immunity for the telecoms. This was about immunity for the Bush administration, and that, alone, should have made it DOA in a Democratic-controlled Congress.

I don't pretend to know what's motivating Obama to compromise on this, but I'd hate to think that it has anything to do with concerns over appearing weak, because (and I'm with you here) he's done such a good job of trumping fear with principle thus far. This, I'm afraid, is not a good place to begin with nuance.

And BTW, what ever happened to "we need 60 votes to cut off debate" that Dems are always whining as an excuse re why they can't get decent legislation passed?

Doesn't that mean the Repubs need 60 votes to cut off debate and get a vote on FISA? They've managed to use their "minority status" to block stuff in the past; why don't the Dems -- whether they're majority, minority, or whatever they are these days -- take a page from their book and bring back the good ole filibuster?