That "good faith" loophole is so large, you could drive a bus through it.

--

Thank you for writing regarding the Bush Administration's request for legislation that would provide immunity for telecommunications companies that are alleged to have provided assistance to the National Security Agency after September 11, 2001. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic, and welcome the opportunity to respond.

The legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) was debated in the Senate on December 17, 2007, but further action is postponed until January. That legislation, which was written by the Senate Intelligence Committee and approved by a vote of 13-2, would provide immunity for such companies if they were specifically requested or directed to provide assistance to the government.

The Intelligence Committee's report on the bill includes declassified text stating that the Executive branch provided letters to electronic communication service providers at regular intervals. These letters all directed or requested assistance and noted that the assistance was authorized by the President and was legal. The Committee's report can be found at http://intelligence.senate.gov/071025/report.pdf .

I introduced an amendment on the Senate floor that would limit this grant of immunity. Under my amendment, cases against the telecommunications companies would go to the FISA Court for judicial review. The Court would only provide immunity if it finds that the alleged assistance was not provided, that assistance met legal requirements, or that a company had a good faith, reasonable belief that assistance was legal.

I believe that this approach strikes the correct balance: it maintains court review and a judicial determination of whether companies provided assistance that they should have known violated the law.

I have also filed an amendment to restore FISA's exclusivity, to ensure that no surveillance program can proceed outside the law in the way that the Terrorist Surveillance Program did for more than five years.

Rest assured that I will make every effort to ensure that new FISA legislation will protect the privacy rights of all Americans without restricting the intelligence community's ability to protect us from attack.

Again, thank you for writing. I hope that you will continue to write on matters of importance to you. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

Might I remind all who are wondering where John Edwards was that he doesn't have a vote here. Clinton and Obama are both Senators and could have gone back to Washington DC to show their support for Chris Dodd.

Edwards is the best candidate we (Americans) have at the moment. The fact that pundits like Laurence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews, et al want him out or ignore him is no reason for Americans not to pay attention to reality and vote for him.

I don't care who Maureen Dowd likes or doesn't like and that goes for the entire pack of "journalists" out there trying to tell us who to vote for. None of them have interests of the vast majority of Americans at heart -- only John Edwards does.

The only reported instances of telecom companies not helping the Bush administration that I've read about lately were when the FBI fell behind in its payments. So they stopped. I guess these companies' extreme, rewardable patriotism only carries them until the first check bounces.

He's gotta be the guy. What does he have to lose? Taking up the mantle is his only hope. Stand up or stand down!

I'm guessing you, Firedoglake and others have been putting heads together on a plan of attack for saving our 4th Amendment rights in the upcoming FISA Update battle.

Can I assume you'll be posting on The Plan in the very near future?

Yes. The only way it has any chance at all of working is if it goes far beyond just blogs and their readers, so we're working on coordinating a campaign with lots of other groups and organizations -- the ACLU, EFF, DFA, MoveOn, etc. It needs the bulk, resources and numbers that they can bring, too. The problem is that when you deal with that many parties, especially large organizations, thinks are a little slow - everyone needs to get on board, approve, have various concerns assuaged, etc. But it's close to being done.

While Harry Reid seems to want to stealthly slide the SIC's version past his slumbering Democratic majority, I'm still holding out hope that the Democratic firebrands in the House can hold the line, and particularly in any Conference committee.

They don't have enough votes. Without the presidentials taking a leadership role, it's doomed - at least in the Senate. The Democrats would just as soon get the whole thing done and finished in quiet if they can.

--

I couldn't agree more.

It's really hard to maintain intensity about any of this when the concerns of the public seem to be repeatedly ignored by the political power structure (media included). I can't help but feel like the people who can make a difference are laughing at anybody who feels passionately about such trite issues like telecom immunity.

I like coming here and reading this blog. But I'm drained. There isn't a lot left for me to do. And what I've done isn't helping. What most people have done, it just isn't helping. Hell...the opposition party isn't even helping. What's left? Where is the motivation to care?

There needs be an effective new political party. That would be a good first step.

Or just blow it all up.

either way.

Edwards may not have a vote here, but he is allowed access to the senate floor, and his appearance there would still be a measure of support for Dodd.

At a minimum, he could provide Dodd with reading materials for the filibuster, and as a former trial lawyer, he's probably got some good stuff on hand.

It would also be one way for Edwards to break through the media's news block...

Might I remind all who are wondering where John Edwards was that he doesn't have a vote here. Clinton and Obama are both Senators and could have gone back to Washington DC to show their support for Chris Dodd.

You're right that Edwards has no vote, but he does have a voice -- and, at least so far, he hasn't used it on this issue, even though it's so tailor-made for his message about our "rigged political system."

He could put a lot of pressure on Obama and Clinton to do something -- and generate much-needed attention and support for himself -- by getting out in front on this issue. We've been talking to his campaign to try to make that case, so far to no avail. But we'll see.