This is frustrating, but I don’t have time to address this. Apparently, Democrats have agreed to a “compromise” on the telecom immunity issue, and from all reports, they basically caved to the Administration by asking for a meaningless concession. This reeks of lobbying money, but I don’t have time to dig into this. Instead, I’ll point you over at the writers at ObWi who have a series of posts and links to the wider blog and news world for more information. Here’s the key point:

Most importantly, though, when the government asks someone to break the law, they hold a lot of the cards: the prestige of the Presidency, the power to exclude companies from federal contracts, and so on. Just about the only reason someone might have to say no, other than conscience, is the fear of legal liability. By immunizing these companies, we make it much more likely that the next time some President who thinks he has dictatorial powers asks a company to break the law, it will do so. And that’s just wrong.

The U.S. doesn’t need a President “who thinks he has dictatorial powers” for this to be a problem. We just need a President who believes that the law shouldn’t apply to them. Maybe they think they’re acting in the greater good, but are mistaken. Maybe they’re eavesdropping on political opponents masquerading as legitimate counter-intelligence. We have one now who believes in signing statements and no accountability for his office. Just look at the firing scandals in the various federal agencies. We don’t want to make breaking the law easier of all things.

Anyway, here are the links. The excerpt above is from the first link below:

Read them all. They each address the issue from a slightly different angle, but the conclusion is consistent: the Democrats caved on a policy that is wrong for America, wrong for people who believe in liberty, and wrong for the safety and security of the nation. This compromise doesn’t do anything to help the war on terror, it simply makes it easier for the government to pressure private companies to break the law.

Also, be sure to follow some of the links, especially to Greenwald, who has a series of posts up going into excruciating detail (as only a lawyer could do) if you’re into that. The post linked in this paragraph is the most interesting, but if you want more background on how the bill came to be, who wrote it, and other pertinent details, check out the posts from a few days ago about Steny Hoyer (and no, he didn’t write the bill).