So it seems to me that the only thing that can really be done is to empower the Congress and the courts with the ability to classify and declassify information, and subject classification, when there is an issue, to review without any exception for emergency or the exigency of any particular situation. - ondolette

This is certainly a debate Congress ought to be having. The abuse of the classification system is egregious - and harmful to the protection of legitimately-secret information, because it becomes less distinguishable from all the (properly public) chaff that is similarly classified.

At least if civil suits brought by citizens, focused on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as it relates to today's private electronic communications, are not removed from the Judicial Branch by the other two branches - a removal retroactive immunity is intended to force - we still have a chance to learn what "unreasonable search and seizure" should mean in the information age. But Congress is hell-bent on slamming shut that courtroom door, and silencing that debate:

To break an impasse over legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, House Democratic leaders are considering the option of taking up a Senate-passed FISA bill in stages, congressional sources said today. Under the plan, the House would vote separately on the first title of the bill, which authorizes surveillance activities, and then on the bill's second title, which grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's warrantless electronic surveillance activities. The two would be recombined, assuming passage of both titles.

Http://holdfastblog.com/2008/02/29/potential-deal-could-assure-retroactive-immunity/

House resistance, or not, to retroactive immunity is entirely in the hands of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer. As soon as they allow a bill or amendment containing retroactive immunity to come to the floor, in any form, they have capitulated to Jay Rockefeller and the White House. Period.

Is Pat Leahy bothering to counteract Rockefeller on immunity on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee - or even showing up at these closed-door meetings - or does he continue to say one thing publicly and do another privately? Rockefeller is pursuing this outrageous course of action at least as doggedly as Cheney. His political party membership is irrelevent in this matter. Rockefeller's social status, his family history, and his income class are taking precedence over any semblance of public service, the greater public good, or the inconvenient Constitution - those latter "causes" are obviously far less compelling to Rockefeller than are the personal concerns that he is determined to prefer, at all costs. Republican Rep. Blunt makes that clear, in his approving comment yesterday on the floor about Rockefeller's lawbreaking-immunity position:

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that. I do know that Senator Rockefeller in the other body has said that our intelligence is being downgraded and has made the case that the people that voluntarily complied don't get paid for it. He said, in fact: "What do they get for this? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it." Then he went on to say: "They don't have to do it, because they do have shareholders to respond to, to answer to."

Here's more from Blunt's exchange with Steny Hoyer about FISA and next week's schedule, as discussed on the House floor yesterday:

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman knows, this bill was passed in the Senate a little over 2 weeks ago. Since that time we have had an extensive number of meetings, discussions. I'm hopeful, as you know, to have discussions with the whip, with the distinguished Republican whip, my friend, on this issue as well. I think both of us are going to be here tomorrow. We'll take that time perhaps to do that.

[snip]

All of us are aware of the fact that technological changes have resulted in some questions being raised because of the fact that we have many of the communications coming through the United States. I frankly think, as the gentleman knows, there is really not a great deal of controversy or difference between the two Houses or between our two sides of the aisle on this issue. There's some differences, but they're not major differences. I think they can be addressed.

There are major differences with respect to the second title of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill which comes from the Senate which deals with retroactive immunity, which has nothing about prospective security but is obviously important for us to consider. We're also working on that as well, but I will tell the gentleman that we don't have agreement. But, as I said, I'm very hopeful that we will have legislation on the floor next week. I do not expect it to be, as the gentleman asked, the same bill that passed the House.

[snip]

A major contention is, which we believe has nothing to do with security, on what has been done, and, frankly, I'm not sure we know exactly what has been done. As you know, I've taken the opportunity to be up in the intelligence room, in the secure room, and go through the papers that have been provided. My own view is they're not dispositive of the issue; but irrespective of that, we're working on title II as well, and I look forward to having discussions on that with you as well.-

[snip]

[The Senate] did not send us a bill until, as I said, about 14 days ago, and we have since that time, notwithstanding the fact we were on break, staff and Members have been working on that. As you know, we have invited the other side of the aisle, ranking members, to participate in that. Some have chosen not to, but we are hopeful that we can move ahead on this, and we hope there is room for positive resolution. - Steny Hoyer, 2/28/08

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=H1168&position=all