Why Immunity Matters

"If the AT&T case is allowed to proceed, for example, the plaintiffs will ask a judge to consider documents provided by a former AT&T technician, Mark Klein, that suggest a massive effort by the National Security Agency to tap into the backbone of the Internet to retrieve millions of e-mails and other exclusively domestic communications."

Eric Lichtblau writes in the New York Times: "The warnings from President Bush and his senior aides have grown more urgent over the last few weeks, now that Congress has let a temporary wiretapping law expire. But there is little sign of anxiety among many intelligence and phone industry officials."

Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum wonders if one reason the telecoms themselves aren't fighting all that hard on behalf of this legislation might be because they've all got indemnity agreements that would force the federal government to pay any legal judgments awarded against them.

Studs Terkel, Quentin Young, Barbara Flynn Currie and James Montgomery, plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits, write in a Chicago Tribune op-ed: "More than six years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration remains committed to using the specter of those attacks (and other possible new attacks) as justification for reckless, unlawful and unconstitutional behavior. This pattern can be seen most clearly in the current effort in Congress to grant the administration unchecked power to spy on Americans and to forgive in advance large corporate entities for illegal behavior. . . .

"Congress should not deny us our day in court. The companies broke the law, and we believe they must be held accountable. . . .

"If we give them a free pass this time, won't the telephone companies feel free to violate the laws protecting our privacy in the future?"

Signs of a Cave-In

The shocking Feb. 14 House rebellion on the surveillance issue was actually just a delaying tactic. All the House did was defy a White House deadline. Now signs increasingly suggest that congressional Democrats intend to go belly up again -- as usual.

Jason DeParle writes in the New York Times: "The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee hinted Sunday that a battle over an expired eavesdropping law might be moving toward a conclusion that gave phone companies the retroactive legal protections long sought by President Bush.

"The chairman, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, said in an interview on CNN that the committee had been talking to the companies 'because if we're going to give them blanket immunity, we want to know and understand what it is we're giving immunity for.'

"Mr. Reyes did not specify what provisions a House bill might contain. But his use of the words 'blanket immunity' suggested that he might be moving toward a Senate bill, backed by Mr. Bush, that would protect phone companies that assisted in a federal program of wiretapping without warrants after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"'I have an open mind about that,' Mr. Reyes said."

Greg Miller wrote in Sunday's Los Angeles Times that House Democrats are considering a plan to set up two separate votes, splitting the immunity issue from the less controversial measures to give the government broad new eavesdropping authorities.