My interpretation is that some telecoms may have questioned whether an extension or modification of a grandfathered warrantless wiretapping order is actually covered by the old warrantless PAA order, or, instead, is actually a new order which would now be governed by the old (pre-August 2007) version of FISA. -- sysprog

Yes, indeed, sysprog. At a minimum, this is the situation that DNI Mike McConnell is alleging to be the problem, whether or not it is in fact the case. McConnell made this clear in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on 2/14/08. http://c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=9 At the same hearing where Sheldon Whitehouse (apparently to Rockefeller's chagrin) got McConnell's ODNI counsel to admit that as long as groups such as "Al Qaeda" were included in the PAA spying authorizations made before its sunset, any and all new individual members - or associates or casual allies - of those groups are legitimate new PAA targets of surveillance through (at least) July even though not identified and included pre-sunset. (That's how broad the sweeping, year-long nominally-FISC-reviewed Executive Branch authorization orders are under the PAA for the collection of private communications on U.S. territory, using private-sector network infrastructure to access the information.)

In other words, DNI McConnell was basically stating that he was planning to strong-arm private-sector corporations who may now be resisting breaking the law and violating the Constitution by wiping out that law with the help of Congress (which also conveniently helps keep the Judicial Branch from enforcing the Constitution) for their particular past criminal actions. Of course, as Glenn rightly points out here, that has nothing directly to do with the potentially-criminal actions going forward of those private-sector companies (except as precedent perhaps for future erasure of the rule of law for those selected to secretly spy on Americans at the behest of the leadership of the Executive Branch).

So DNI McConnell is effectively asserting that once the law is erased regarding their past actions, private-sector cooperation will be ensured going forward, but that only enacting prospective immunity (via RESTORE), without retroactive immunity included, will not provide the same cooperation. These "patriotic" corporations will, in short, according to McConnell, happily conduct "immunized" future mass domestic interception of our international communications only if their past criminal slates are first wiped clean.

Which leads to the scene that ondelette sketches so clearly:

In other words, the intransigent Democrats and the letter of the law are not the reason the telecoms are balking, they're balking because it looks to them like trusting corporate style legalese out of the White House and the Justice Department is like asking for a lawsuit or an indictment.

The White House solution to that, knowing that everybody in their game speaks corporate law and boardroom morals, is to show they can get immunity whenever their legal opinions fall through. To the corporate CEO's, a known get out of jail card is just as good as legal backing, because it reduces the risk to an acceptable level as the cost of doing business.

-- ondelette

Indeed.

In addition to video pushback to these unconscionable abuses of power, such as the excellent efforts of Crooks & Liars and Fiore, one suggestion I'd make to those in the House (and Senate) trying to beat back the propaganda is to refrain from casting the debate in terms of their political party. They should try to forget that they're Democrats, and instead focus on being Americans in this debate (to help rebut the bad faith "bipartisan" argument). Something like:

This is about defending our Constitution, as well as our territory and people, regardless of politics, regardless of party. That certain members of the House and Senate are prepared to suspend their own better judgements in order to join this president and vice president in acting in open contempt of our Constitution, does not mean that this member of the House of Representatives is prepared to likewise forfeit her judgement, or power or vote, or her duty to honor the Constitution. The inherent right of our citizens to protection from unwarranted government surveillance, as enshrined in our Fourth Amendment, must be uppermost in our minds as we consider this legislation. This FISA legislation's primary purpose was and is to judicially permit, in accordance with our founding principles, the secret monitoring of modern communication technologies in America that contain and transmit the communications of our fellow, law-abiding citizens, in order to learn of threats to our nation, whether they originate at home or abroad before entering our territory.

Congress established a secret court to facilitate that spying on culpable Americans and foreigners in America. Yet even a secret court was apparently too restrictive for whatever it is this administration is doing with its private-sector American partners. This Congress will not allow any further encroachments on the rights of the American people, by those determined to scare them out of their liberty with fraudulent and misleading threats. As Thomas Paine put it so well centuries ago: "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." This House of Representatives will not succumb to the vice of moderation in principle, with our Constitution in danger and the rights and liberty of our citizens under assault by their own government.

P.S. To 'lateagain' (and others interested in the subject) - I'd encourage you to read (and to pass along to your fellow student) a timely and comprehensive new Harvard Law Review article by Marty Lederman and David Barron, about the history and implementation of our Constitution's war powers. I'm only part way through it, but it's an extremely valuable overview of the state of play, and tackles head on such brazen assertions about the "wartime" powers of the president as those of Yoo that you cite in your comment. Links to both parts of the article are here:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/02/commander-in-chief-at-lowest-ebb.html