Before considering this blanket amnesty (let's use the correct word) to telecoms that cooperated with illegal surveillance, Congress should get some answers about why it is even needed.

Recall that the administration has claimed -- under legal theories never upheld by any court -- that the warrantless "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was really lawful after all. All along there has been, under existing law, 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B), a provision by which the AG could certify legality to cooperating telecoms by providing:

a certification in writing ... that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,

Such a certification already would protect a company from any liability. Section 2511 goes on to say:

...No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.

In the civil suits against the telecoms, the administration has interceded and claimed that the very existence (or not) of such a certification is a state secret that cannot even be disclosed to a judge! (Yet McConnell apparently can talk about the companies' cooperation to the El Paso Times.)

Some key unanswered questions are: Did the AG provide such certifications to the telecoms for some or all all that they did? If not, why not? If so, then why is the blanket amnesty even needed?

Remember, in addition to the publicly announced TSP as described by Bush, Gonzales and company, there also were other activities going on through March 2004. Whatever these activies were, they were so egregious that Comey, Ashcroft, Goldsmith, Mueller, Baker and other top DOJ officials were prepared to resign over them.

As an aside, do not underestimate the considerable lobbying clout of the telecommunications industry, which will not be at all transparent during this process.

It's a fair point, but I trust Jim Risen's reporting skills, especially on FISA, at least enough to conclude that there must be something real here for him to have included this possibility in such a clear way.

My impression is the opposite. While I don't belittle Risen's investigative prowess for breaking the original NSA surveillance story, I have found his reporting on the legal and legislative aftermath to be pretty bad.

Risen totally failed to report the action while the PAA was being enacted just before the August recess, and even a week later the NYT thumbsucker to which he contributed fundamentally misstated what the act actually did. It took yet another week for the NYT, focusing on "critics," to wake up to the fact that the bill was hugely controversial and enacted things not previously covered by the Times.

Even Risen's story today, which lacks any quote to support his lede, is basically wrong. McConnell actually testified last May before Senate Intelligence that there was no longer warrantless surveillance going on, so this element is not news.

I watched the House hearing on C-SPAN yesterday (it is temporarily archived there) and found it quite unenlightening -- primarily because of the inept questioning by most committee members.