Mr. Greenwald and many of the posters seem to have missed the point of Ms. Soderberg's op ed. In addition, the legislation does not give "elites...licence to break laws."

Ms. Soderberg makes these points:

1. The telecoms relied on the opinion of the Sen Intelligence Comm that complying with the President's request was lawful.

2. It was subsequently deemed unlawful.

3. The telecoms shouldn't be held responsible for Presidential abuse of power.

The critical issue is the President's abuse of power. I agree with Mr. Greenwald (as I am sure would Ms. Soderberg) that the President is not a monarch and can't order a private citizen to do something. Telecom immunity is a side issue, at best, and a dangerous distraction from the real issue, at worst. Under the Bush administration, the scope of presidential powers has been pushed well beyond what the Founders intended. That is the important issue.

As far a I can tell, this FISA bill only grants telecoms immunity for past behavior. That behavior has been deemed unlawful - the law will not grant immunity for future acts.

I am not happy that the telecoms agreed to Bush's request. But I seriously doubt that most of them had to have their arms twisted. This is a "you scratch mine, I'll scratch yours" situation. Cooperate and you just might get some nice, juicy government contracts. We should all be up in arms about the cozy relationships between business and government. But the energy wasted on the question of whether telecoms should be granted civil immunity for actions that were deemed lawful when they were taken could be better spent addressing issues which are much more critical to the future of our nation.

Rolling back the powers Bush has usurped and getting rid of the corruption and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the Bush administration should be our goals.

The telecoms did not knowingly break the law. They relied on the opinion of the Senate Intelligence Committee that complying with Bush's request was lawful.

I do not believe that anything in FISA prevents Congressional hearings/investigations into these matters. Is there? From such hearings we would get the information needed to find out what happened. Litigation is not the only way to get information. Although it is a way to line lawyer's pockets --lawyers who represent telecoms and those who sue them would be happy as clams if the telecoms were not granted civil immunity!

"What did they know and when did they know it." [Fill in favorite scandal here]-gate

If the telecoms knowingly broke the law then that is an argument against civil immunity. Of course. But there are other arguments for - you may not like or agree with them.

You note that the telecoms have lots of lawyers telling them what they can and can't do. Of course. So, the question of what these lawyers told the telecoms, I doubt they said "well, it is illegal but, aw, go ahead anyway." Any advice a lawyer gives to his/her client boils down to these questions: Will I get sued? If I get sued will I lose?

I have to admit that I am not as well-educated on this issue as a I should be. I need a FISA 101 class before I can move on to 300 level classes (Glen Greenwald's columns). Can anyone point to a source where I could get a basic overview? Just facts, time lines, things life that.

The FISA provision only goes to civil liability it does not go to criminal liability. In a criminal action the government's burden of proof is much higher than in a civil action. If I were suing the telecoms I would prefer to bring a civil action - my chances of winning would be greater. So, taking away the option of a civil proceeding means that the telecoms may likely be off the hook.

Thank you both very much - I will navigate my way there right now.

The more I see how McCain is running his campaign the more frightened I become that he could win. In his campaign ads, his public statements and those of his aides - McCain lies and twists the truth. After 8 years of lies and "truth-twisting" and the disastrous consequences thereof you would think that the American people would have caught on. But many people believe these lies (cf. Obama is a Muslim, Michelle used the word "Whitey"). I cannot remember where I read about it (maybe in the NYT Science supplement) but a study found that people tend to believe the first thing they hear, even if false, and continue to believe it even when given facts that prove the initial statement false. Democrats must be vigilant and stay ahead of the curve and jump on these lies immediately.

Reinstate the draft.

An acquaintance of mine who works for US AID was in Afghanistan after the Taliban was kicked out. When she came back I asked her how long she thought it would take for Afghanistan to get back on its feet. She said 15-20 years if nothing happened like a re-surgence of Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So here we are. We blew it when we abandoned Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. So now how long it will take for both Afghanistan and Iraq to recover?