Another point to make about the telecoms, raising the stakes just a smidgeon about patriotism and national loyalty, is: how and where do these outfits operate from anyway?

They're not all in Kansas City or Silicon Valley are they?

Everyone knows that our air reservations and telephone bills are being handled more and more by clerks or operators sitting in cozy offices in places like Finland and India.

People have some knowledge that executive operations for many corporations are now managed "offshore" as well. There are the anecdotes about companies essentially operating out of mailboxes in the Grand Caymans.

Are these telecom companies which are in possession of government eavesdropping contracts "secure"? Are they operating in the best interests of the American people? In the national security interests of the United States? Where is their "data" stored? Where are their mainframes located?

Why should they be given immunity without some deeper knowledge of how they operate in the global economy?

I made sure to frame it not just as a privacy issue (as important as that is) but about the fundamental principle of the rule of law.

Shooters contribution reminds us of why this is important. There were law specifically written to criminalize certain activity. Those laws were written because of rampant abuse.

As I've written elsewhere:

"The administration has always had a responsibility to either uphold the law or push for a change in the law. To have them defy the law and then push for a change only after they have been in violation for years puts the entire notion of lawfulness at risk. If they can simply make it up as they go, then what can they NOT do?"

It isn't the privacy, its the lawbreaking.

If what they did weren't blatantly illegal, there would be no need for immunity.

“The critique can be expanded, emphasizing the amnesty issue all the way, to underline the hypocrisy of this particular conservative government, which has broken all records for spending and racking up debt, just like the conservative government of the beloved Ronnie.”

We do need to expand our critique and find a successful way of reaching middle income Americans who are not aware of this issue or its implications. Now that the economy is in serious trouble thanks to the Repugs who are only interested in supporting big money and war, if we want to reach these Americans we need to use Edward’s approach that the corporatists are out to get you. This is the kind of message we need to get across.

The telecoms and corporate America don’t give a damn about you or our government. They are interested in raking in your money period. Which is why they had no problem breaking the law even though their large, well paid legal departments, probably told them they were breaking the law. Now after making all that money, they want us to give them retroactive immunity for knowingly breaking the law. Don’t buy their excuse that the Bush Administration told them it was OK. Innocence of the law can never be an excuse for breaking the law otherwise everyone can break the law with impunity. It’s time to tell these corporations that they don’t run this country, THE PEOPLE DO.

You're willing to give your life in protest of call traffic patterns, and keyword searches? That seems like a waste to me, but to each his own. Heh.

The hard thing is finding a way to put pressure on the Democratic leadership. The game that they are playing is that most Democrats will vote against telecom immunity and blanket warrants because they know it's unpopular with the base, but they'll select a few secure incombents who are willing to take the political hit for voting with the Republicans. The party leadership arranges for a handful of people to cross over, and that way they ensure that Republican legislation passes pretty much every time, while most Democratic representatives cannot be blamed individually. So what's the leverage you have as a voter? You can't vote against your own Democratic representative because chances are that they voted the right way on the issue. And you cannot directly vote against the Democratic leadership. So what can you do?

The only effective thing to do at this point that I can think of is publicly pledge that, if the Democrats allow telecom immunity and blanket warrants to become law (even if they pretend to be sorry for it), you'll vote against the Democratic party in the presidential election. If enough people pledge to not vote for any Democratic presidential candidate, seriously, no compromises or second thoughts, if telecom immunity passes, the leadership and the campaigns will get the message, at least if the pledge is well organized and communicated effectively to them. But you'd have to mean it and truly be willing to risk another four years of a Republican president. If you don't you won't be credible. You'd have to work to ensure that the Democratic candidate loses if they pass the immunity bill. Whether you are willing to do this depends on how important basic liberties are to you, balanced against other issues. I wonder whether anybody might be willing to organize a web-based pledge campaign to not vote for any Democrat in November if the telecom immunity bill passes.

Here's what I wrote to Mr. Edwards:

Dear Mr. Edwards:

The American people stand to collect billions of dollars in damages caused by George Bush's illegal spying on them.

America's top intelligence boss has said so. He claims to be worried that America's phone companies will go bankrupt because of the damage wrought against Americans, damage now coming to light in a handful of lawsuits against U.S. phone companies, damage they inflicted because the Bush administration paid them to do it.

Over the next several days, the Senate will decide whether to sweep these damages under the rug and change the law so the phone companies' illegal activities are no longer illegal.

Sen. Chris Dodd has promised to fight this change in the law.

As a plaintiff's lawyer, I'm sure you understand how unfair it would be to have Congress change the law in the middle of one of your lawsuits. It would be particularly unfair to your client, of course.

Perhaps someday it will be necessary to grant these phone companies some relief. But maybe the truth about their activities and the damages they caused should come out first.

I hope you will make sure this issue is debated in the presidential campaign.

Very truly yours,

overlander