The guy who broke into your house is charged with breaking and entering and then thrown in jail, the police are charged with comissioning a crime (Being a cop wouldn't change that) and would probably follow the B&E artist to prison, the department is sued for its part in the whole affair, and any evidence gained is deemed inadmissable.

The reason you don't sue the individual doing the B&E job is more one of practical considerations - that person doesn't have enough money to make it worthwhile.

However, an individual who violates your constitutional rights is still subject to being sued themselves. Famous examples include OJ Simpson, the KKK and various cases involving celebrities suing the press.

The Constitutional protections in this case prevents the government from using evidence recovered illegally (in this case by a government agent) from being used against a defendant in a court of law.

I can't recall a single government agent prosecuted for acting in good faith.

telecoms could show that they were acting in good faith these suits would be thrown out. I'm no big fan of corporations but honestly the responsible party would seem to be the federal government.

Also, appeals courts have already said that only individuals that could show that they were spied on could bring suit. Under those conditions, these lawsuits would be thrown out for that as well.

But someone suing the government could ask a court to have the telecoms examine their records to see if they were spied on. Giving the telecoms immunity would prevent them from claiming 5th amendment protections or protections from liability.

As you just conceded, the private companies involved were acting as agents of the government, thus making them subject to constitutional law - including the right to redress of grievances.

Their lawyers' opinion was just that, an opinion that needed testing in court.

I seldom ask a question if I don't already know the answer :)

I can't with confidence answer your question, but I don't think any lounge chair lawyers in a Salon Letters forum are gonna enlighten you much either. Seek more authoritative sources elsewhere.

The Bill of Rights often protect us from criminal wrong-doings by our government.

The telecoms acting as a government agent is akin to the police asking some guy on the street to break into your home to look for drugs. Do you sue the guy who broke into your house or the police?

Also, the remedy is usually when the criminal is brought to trial, the evidence found illegally would be inadmissible.

That's the usual remedy under the fourth amendment.

This article is incredibly vacuous. Walsh seems to know nothing about the details of the issue. She's just looking for a reason to keep criticizing Obama while pretending she doesn't really want to.

At least go through the details of how the FISA bill had changed after the previous filibuster.

"This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court."

"Too bad Obama doesn't believe that anymore"

This is so childish.

Does Walsh realize that the point of contention is giving telecom companies a stronger argument to present to judges that they were acting in good faith and thought they were following the law, before a case goes to trial? That's it. That point -- the only point that matters here -- isn't mentioned at all in the quote she gives as evidence of Obama's supposedly "changed" views. She's being blatantly misleading.

The rest of the bill now reinstates the FISA court as compulsory, after hard-won Democrat amendments. There weren't the votes to re-filibuster based on the fact that the so-called "immunity" provision remained, so Obama chose to vote for the amended bill rather than take an essentially empty stand that would have exposed him to attack ads saying he was against legal wiretapping.

I guess I had an inkling that Walsh was a hack, but at least give me a little reason to think she deserves such a high profile on Salon, like getting her to do a proper point-by-point analysis of the issue at question.

I'm not that smart so I'm afraid you lost me.

Many laws have been enacted to protect private companies from civil liability and litigation.

The Bill of Rights has often been found not to be applicable to private entities that have no government connection.

In this case, the telecom companies were acting as an agent of the government. In effect, their lawyers consulted with the Justice Department and they were told its okey-dokey.

Now, I don't doubt that the telecoms should have used better due diligence. But if it were I who had their rights violated, I would seek a redress of my grievances from the Department of Justice first. IS there anything in this bill that prevents American citizens from suing the Justice Department or the federal government?

I am heartened to see you "heart" Smith's hate, and both of you should bear in mind to always remember, wherever there's trouble, more often than not, at the bottom of it all, is an Obamabot.

I know that for those of us who pay attention this vote doesn't make sense. Republicans are going to paint Obama as soft on terrorism no matter what he does.

But I don't live in Chicago. I live in Southern Illinois and I hear how this is playing in my district.

I with you on this, I think it lets telecoms off the hook. But if Obama had voted against the bill (or voted for it before he voted against it like Hillary) or simply didn't show up for the vote like McCain, he'd be the scary muslim black man who is coddling the terrorists. And these people would have ate it up.

The vote is done, its over. We can second guess all we want about whether this will cost him votes, or won't make a difference wit hthe "white working class". My spidey sense tells me it gives him some needed insulation against the coming attacks from the right.

My over riding concern is getting Democrats elected. If you don't think there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans then fine, go in peace. But if, in the end you know that we must have a Democratic government this year then keep you powder dry until after the election and lets have some regime change.