Why don't the Democrats thank Mukasey and McConnell for their letter confirming that it is illegal to spy under FISA without a warrant, and ask them to confirm also that the White House will stop seeking retroactive immunity for telecoms which did so over the past few years?

Mukasey and McConnell's present assertion is no different from the findings of the courts, which already determined that no telecom acting in good faith could have believed such spying to be lawful and, therefore, the "good faith immunity" already written into FISA did not apply. With Mukasey and McConnell now affirmatively arguing precisely that, what room is there to wiggle over immunity now? They just vitiated the very argument they have been making for months.

From a purely legal perspective, shouldn't a letter to Congress of this type qualify for treatment as a judicial admission, binding the Administration and thus ending the debate?

On the off chance the discussion there turns to FISA immunity, forgive the impertinence of "reminding" you, but...

I bring to your attention a November 2007 op-ed by former CIA director (and current Booz Allen guy) Woolsey, who wrote to the LA Times to defend the Bush Administration's call for telecom immunity for prior complicity in felonious eavesdropping with this reassuring rationale. Arguing that it will facilitate future actions by government contractors that are illegal but have been "requested" by someone in the government, Woolsey sublimely states:

"we and our children will be better off if the official can answer the question 'Can you guarantee that my company won't be sued if we help the country?' with 'If it happens, we'll get protective legislation approved as in 2007'."

I can't imagine a more chilling justification for retroactive immunity under FISA: this guy actually argues that we should feel more secure knowing that we would be creating a precedent for future unlawful conspiracies between government bureaucrats and corporate institutions. Sure made me sleep better at night having read this.

There was no big uproar over Woolsey's comments that I saw at the time -- probably, there was too much resignation to the "immutable fact" that the Dems would cave and Bush would get his immunity so why bother. But now that there has been a stirring of democracy and people actually are engaging in some kind of reasoned analysis of whether retroactive immunity is a good idea, Woolsey's comments strike me as just another instance of some Administration hack inadvertently telling the truth, like Negroponte admitting to actual torture or McConnell acknowledging that Bush's real goal in refusing to allow an extension of the FISA amendments is immunity, not avoiding disruption in intelligence gathering, and thus exposing the administration to a need to actually respond.

Isn't an argument that "we want to establish a precedent that can reassure Corporate America that we'll re-write the law to legitimize your participation in undeniably felonious conduct any time we tell you to ignore the law but we get caught at it" something that everyone can understand is a bad idea?

As we continue to try to expose the shameful fraud that Bush's "immunity" push entails, I think this pre-existing recommendation should be included among the litany of reasons why retroactive immunity is such an odious concept and is utterly irreconcilable with our Constitution and the rule of law.

GG ably cites back to the origins of the Constitution's separation of powers, premised as they are upon recognition that without checks against unilateral action, we cannot hope for a balanced government.

On this note, I was -- well, stunned is too strong a word, considering the source, but -- truly amazed that Bush could stand in front of cameras yesterday and endorse McCain with the statement that McCain "understands that his oath of office requires him to protect Americans". This is flatly untrue, of course, because the President's oath of office requires the President to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This is not an accident. The oath is the way the Constitution gets implemented, for goodness sake. Only if the President is committed to allowing the Constitution's emphasis upon checks and balances and the rule of law can our country succeed; where, as is self-evidently here, the President acts out of a belief that implementation of the subjective views of the Executive is the President's highest goal and Constitutional obligation, the rule of law is gone and the rule of men supplants it.

I was indeed shocked, shocked to find that NSA letters are still being abused [or that there's gambling at Rick's Cafe]. But juxtaposed with Bush's vapid reference to the "President's Oath of Office" -- after all, it can't be like none of this has ever been mentioned in his presence -- it is so very plain that impeachment must be pursued.

I continue to wait for serious comment from either Clinton or Obama about Bush's disregard for the United States Constitution. Not a sound bite, an exposition. There really are people in this country who would care. I would hate to believe that Nader's assessment of the Republicans and the Democrats is true and there is no material difference -- but as the Dems prepare to cave on FISA yet again and nobody dares to actually challenge the President over anything he is doing, that is looking like a serious possibility.