is the implicit -- nearly explicit -- precedent granting of the green light for limitless clamorem et uthesium / Writs of Assistance secret surveillance going forward, with no independent oversight whatsoever.

Whether this odious legislation will ultimately be found "unconstitutional" is far from certain, Given what Bu'ush has done to the Supreme Court thus far.

“I give you a Republic if you can keep it.”

- Ben Franklin

Sorry, Ben. It was nice while it lasted.

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.

No. There are two separate defenses in FISA - (1) a "good faith" belief that an illegal act was legal and (2) a written certification from the AG that it was legal (regardless of whether it was).

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."

What you're describing would, by definition, ALREADY bestow immunity under the law. Obviously, if the President issued a "legal directive" in the way you mean it -- that the President had the right under the law to order it -- then AT&T not only would have acted in "good faith" that it was legal - it would have been legal. That's a higher standard than FISA requires

You're trying to use a newspaper article to legally analyze the applicable standard. The whole point of this exercise is to get rid of the lawsuits (because Rockefeller and friends were persuaded there was good faith here). They're writing the law with that goal. The telecom lawyers are working with McConnell and the Intelligence Committee to write to the law merely to require a demonstration of what they already have.

I haven't read the draft bill yet - it's not available publicly - but I've spoken with several lawyers who have read it, and there is no question that it results in dismissal of the telecom lawsuits. The procedure is that the telecom lawyers go into the court, ex parte, and demonstrate that they were directed that (a) they should do this and (b) that it was legal (that's a "legal directive"). If they make that showing - which they will - the lawsuits end. I'll quote from the draft once it's available.

Eric Coulter (or is it Ann Cantor?) did us a big fat favor by using a poison-pill amendment to scuttle the House bill. (Of course, he only did it so he could collect his bag of telco money and try to paint the Dems as Soft On Terra, so he shouldn't get TOO much credit.)

The bill won't be voted on until next week in the House. That gives us time to really make ourselves heard -- NO TELCO FREE RIDE, PERIOD:

http://www.house.gov

http://www.senate.gov

Here's the name of Chris Dodd's Policy Director on this website. Call into his campaign headquarters and tell him the American people need leadership NOW on this issue.

Campaign HQ Phone Number: 202.737.3633

Name: Amos Hochstein, Policy Director

Made my phone call. Offered my thanks. Expressed my support. They were glad to get the call.

Mikulski? No forget to huff, puff, sigh, and breath.

She's my senator who is supposed to 'represent' scooby dogs too. No such Lady Luck!

I hand-carried a packet.

Maybe "representatives" read?

If people don't respond. Love scooby-Marylander-lovers. I don't know what else to do?

Anybody know a Harley gal?

My ribs itch and need scratched.

I honestly got to go- I shad up!

My respect to my neighbor, Scoobie.

The UK, France and Germany now, vis a vis domestic spying. Uh ok.

Male answered. Very friendly, very supportive, happy to get the call, and they're happy to take more of them (hint, hint)...

Says Dodd is looking at "every legislative avenue" and they're "all over it" [the issue].

I find it somewhat doubtful that legislators who have basically been bought by the large telecom companies would allow a bill with such a large loophole in it. I am hopeful that your analysis is correct, but I'm not counting on it.

Without being able to see the actual text of the bill, I'm not sure that you are correct, Glenn.

Yes - you're quoting the term "legal directive" from the Washington Post article as though it's the legal standard in the bill. Here's the lead paragraph from Eric Lichtblau's article in the NYT, who has seen the bill:

Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee reached a tentative agreement on Wednesday with the Bush administration that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program approved by President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a Congressional official said Wednesday.

And:

Senators this week began reviewing classified documents related to the participation of the telephone carriers in the security agency program and came away from that early review convinced that the companies had “acted in good faith” in cooperating with what they believed was a legal and presidentially authorized program and that they should not be punished through civil litigation for their roles, the official said.

They're writing this bill to achieve the objective of having these suits dismissed, and the lawyers they are working with are writing language to ensure that telecoms can meet those standards.

Neither am I counting on the bill being innocuous, Jeanette; but I would like to see the actual text of the bill, and I would like some better understanding of what constitutes demonstrating that a wire-tapping directive was legal before proceeding to sweeping generalization and condemnations. Call me interested, suspicious, and engaged, but not yet convinced.