Well, as I understand the FISA immunity, as you explained it here, its not for a company that was doing something legal ... its for a company that was doing something found to be illegal later, but for which they could assume was legal at the time. Thats the "good faith" immunity you discuss, and it has nothing to do with ruling that the company followed a "legal directive" as I understand it, and everything to do with declaring that a company in fact followed an ILLEGAL directive, but that they were reasonable in assuming, at the time, was legal.

This is different, IMO ... the language you quote clearly states the need for a court to determine that the directive was legal. It doesn't say anything about "good faith" ... it talks about immunity for any company that can prove it followed a "legal directive." A simple order from the President does not make a directive "legal" and the language of what you quote goes farther than showing "that they were told to do this by someone in authority and assured that it was legal." In fact, it requires that the directive be legal in fact, not just that someone in authority told them it was legal.

Can you explain where in the language you quote you get the notion that companies can simply say "The President told us to do it"? To me, the clear language is that whatever they were told, and whoever told them, the directive they were given still must be proven, in a court of law (I'm cool with secret courts when it involves national security issues, assuming its a secret court made up from the independent judiciary), to be legal. I didn't see anything about what they were told by others ... I saw a requirement to prove they were following a "legal directive" from the President, and part of that requirement must include proving it is legal, musn't it?

I thought the whole point of having super-wealthy senators is that they couldn't be bought for such chump change. $16,000 is a weekend in Paris for these people. Rockefeller's total campaign contributions are something like $2.5 mil, so it's not even a very large percentage of that.

The total contributions from telecoms generally is larger, but it isn't just the contributions themselves. They can buy the lobbyists who are Rockefeller's friends and long-time "colleagues" with access. The telecoms themselves hire all sorts of government officials who are friendly with these Senators. They shower them with all sorts of importance and flattery. It's the whole access culture that gets created. The contributions are just a part of it.

Yes. Love on the run, but never boredom.

Maybe that's it: Life has indeed become so dear, and peace so sweet, that we gladly purchase them with chains and slavery.

When the alternative is hanging, the choice to fight is easy.

A friend says that far more likely than blatant martial law that would rouse the citizenry is a stealth campaign of disappearances, like during the Argentinian reign of the generals.

One by one, those who demand liberty or death will receive neither, but be quietly removed from the scene, as detriments to the public quietude.

Democracies rarely die in a hail of bullets, but in the soft sigh of surrender.

Love wildly and well while we can.

I was interested particularly in Russian papers-Pravda and the Moscow Times. Very interesting reading.

The had some stats about the weapons industry-for the US-that's a $16.1 billion industry, while the next country was Russia with $8 billion. This is also how Prescott Bush made all of his money-in munitions.

Further down in the same article-it cited that the US spends MORE money on defense than ALL of the defense budgets of EVERY country combined---DID YOU HEAR ME? I said MORE THAN ALL OF THE DEFENSE BUDGETS OF ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED.

If that does not tell what Orwellian Fascist state-run by the military-I don't know what will.

Meanwhile, GW will continue to privatize every aspect of govt. and give lucrative contracts to those business cronies. The Dems, stupidly thinking they will get in on the action-will quickly get phased out-pushed out by scandals the NSA was able to dig up/then frame- by giving the WH and Telecoms immunity.

After every aspect of govt is privatized-nothing will be left bt Executive Branch or fascism.

Thanks, Jay-I hope you are the first one to be targetted by the GOP to get rid of.

Beth in cary

This is designed to include what they claim they have -- an oral "directive" from the President and the NSA.

It sets up a procedure where they go to a court - in secret - and show that they were told to do this by someone in authority and assured that it was legal. That is all that is needed.

Without being able to see the actual text of the bill, I'm not sure that you are correct, Glenn. If the text requires that the telecoms actually demonstrate that the directive was legal, not just that they had a good faith belief that it was legal, then oral directives from the President and/or NSA might still not result in telecom immunity. If the courts were to decide that there were legal means to conduct foreign intelligence wire tapping outside of FISA, then the new bill probably grants additional immunity for those extra-FISA actions. However, if the courts hold that FISA really is the exclusive legal means to conduct foreign intelligence wiretaps, then an illegal Presidential order to circumvent FISA likely does not grant telecom immunity even under the new bill.

I called Dod's campaign, thanked them for Dod's stance on telecom immunity and asked that he do whatever it takes to stop the bill. The person that answered was happy to get the call. I did tell her that i had just read your article/post and Dod went from 3rd on my list of candidates to 1st if he follows through. She said she loves calls like this.

Of course, Jay Rockefeller probably doesn't think he's been bought. He probably just made friends with big wheels at AT&T and Verizon, or let them kiss up to him and make friends with him, and now he can't imagine letting his friends go to jail, or lose a huge lawsuit.

So it doesn't smell like bribery, but the end result is about the same.

Back in George Washington's time, rich people had strong ethics -- at least some of them, and the country had the good fortune to be led by ethical rich men like Washington. If out country is done it, it will likely be done by rich men with atrophic ethics, like Jay Rockefeller.