An 18 year old is an adult? I have an 18 year old son. He is a terrific, intelligent, mature kid - but kid is the operative word. He's not an adult. Moreover, many of these kids who sign up have very few options. Next time you see an article in the newspaper honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice: look at their ages and, more important, look at where they are from - you'll find that many come from rural areas or economically depressed areas where there are not many job options. If being a volunteer means taking the only option available to you to earn a living than I guess they are volunteers.

P.S. Because we are blessed to be upper middle class and because my son is heading to college it is highly unlikely that he will be forced to volunteer - he could take that option but it is just one of the many options that are available to him. It is a shame that the families and service men and women who are suffering the most are those near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. That is just plain wrong.

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?

Reinstate the draft.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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!

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.