So you agree with this part, that you didn't italicize?

The telecommunications companies complied with a government request after being assured, in writing, that the activities had been authorized by the president and deemed lawful by the attorney general.

While probably true, it's no defense, of course. Unless you believe in the Nuremberg defense. The 1978 FISA statute contained very specific provisions for certifications to be provided to telecoms by the government before commencing surveillance. And guess what -- if those procedures were followed, the telcos already have immunity under the 1978 FISA law. Which means that there's no need for changes to the law, and no need for the immunity that Bush and Cheney are so desperately seeking.

The fact that they're pushing so hard for immunity in the new bill means that they did break the law.

And that's exactly what Judge Walker ruled, in July 2006, when he DENIED the telcos' motion to dismiss the class action case:

Moreover, because "the very action in question has previously been held unlawful," AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/308_order_on_mtns_to_dismiss.pdf

More at http://www.eff.org/nsa

So the Washington Post is blowing smoke, which is typical for its right-leaning editorial page, courtesy of Fred Hiatt. And you're inhaling.

I agree. Something stinks on Capitol Hill. I've thought this for some time, especially during some of the revelations and "investigations" such as the discovery that torture session video tapes were destroyed (almost every congressional investigation has been stalled without any real backlash). Leadership in both Houses pulls back on pressing these matters.

It was odd enough that, when running to get majority control of Congress, they basically sabotaged the plank they were running on. Running on ending the war and abuses by the Bush administration, Pelosi declared impeachment off the table while Reid and others claimed de-funding equated to abandoning our troops in the field. They hamstrung their own ability to make the changes they were elected to make.

I may be wearing my tin foil hat here, but if this was not a purposeful dodge, they have certainly gone out of their way to dodge doing anything in every other way. The spinelessness only seems to come up when it involves cahngin and challenging the status quo, government abuses and failed programs. But take something like steroid use in baseball (shock, shocked I tell you) and all of a sudden, congress is a bulldog.

When you claim, as hrebendorf did, quoting uncritically Fred Hiatt's right-wing WaPo editorial page, that

The telecommunications companies complied with a government request after being assured, in writing, that the activities had been authorized by the president and deemed lawful by the attorney general

despite Judge Walker's ruling 2 years ago in the AT&T case that

because "the very action in question has previously been held unlawful," AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal

then you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

I notice neither hrebendorf nor you had any response to that post. Go ahead and point out anything in that post that is hyperbole or outright lies. Go ahead and point out where Walker is wrong. Go ahead and point out where Tim Lee, who analyzed the legislation in the article I linked to, is wrong. You can't. So you are reduced to waving your hands, jumping up and down, calling people who disagree with you trolls or fucking pussies, and in general plug your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

Where are the outright lies, Jason?

Hmmm??

>>>>

When you allow Obama (and Pelosi, and Hoyer, and Rockefeller) to insult your intelligence by claiming that this bill is "improved" because it "mak[es] it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people" ignoring the fact that the 1978 FISA law already made that clear (as Judge Walker unequivocally ruled last week -- both that 1978 FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance and that it moots the "state secrets" privilege), then you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you belatedly post a "call to action" on FISA and, specifically, opposing retroactive telco immunity, and then, six days later, post uncritically a WaPo editorial quote about how retroactive immunity is No Big Deal, the telcos were Just Following Orders, and the lawsuits are all stupid anyway, ignoring the glaring contradiction between the two, then you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you allow Obama (and Pelosi and Hoyer and Rockefeller) to insult your intelligence by claiming that this bill is a "compromise" against all evidence, and without citing any evidence, when everyone from the New York Times to authoritarian Republican Senator Kit Bond to the National Review understanding that it plainly was no compromise but in fact was a steamroller victory for authoritarian Republicans and their Democratic enablers, and without even asking for evidence of one single item that the Republican authoritarians "gave up" for this "compromise", then you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you allow Obama to insult your intelligence by claiming that the bill "re-establishes basic judicial oversight" when it plainly does not, you are drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you allow Obama to insult your intelligence by claiming that the bill contains "important tool[s] in the fight against terrorism" without asking which of those "important tools" were unavailable under the 1978 FISA law, you are drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you fail to wonder about Obama's, um, let's call it "strategic reversal" -- of today voting for cloture (i.e. against a filibuster) of a bill that unequivocally did contain retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies, when last October his campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said: ""To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," then you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you attack Greg and Eric merely for recounting the history of Obama's positions on this issue -- when you decide that telling the truth is tantamount to treason against the Democratic Party, or when you claim that the only real purpose of this board is helping Obama get elected, then you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you post that "Even Senator Feingold praises parts of the bill" while ignoring the vast bulk of his discussion, which is pointed, detailed and justified criticism, then you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

When you post outright lies about Obama's history and then when called on it with obvious facts and references, your only response is "Blow me, shithead", then you're drinking the Kool-Aid. (As Tankard wrote in that thread, sometimes the jokes just write themselves.)

And you know, deep in your heart, although you never will admit it, certainly not to me, not to us, and likely not to yourself, that the only reason you are taking the positions you do on this bill is that Obama also took those positions. You also know you wouldn't give this kind of a pass to John McCain or even Hillary Clinton. That's why you're drinking the Kool-Aid.

But you know what, Jason? How about a deal -- If we never again hear ourselves being demonized as "concern trolls" or "purity trolls" or "zealots" or "purists...who get real people killed" or "sanctimonious egomaniacs" or "homo look-alikes" or "fucking pussies" or dozens of other ad hominems strewn across these threads that you conveniently forget about in your wounded indignation over our rhetoric, then maybe we'll drop the Kool-Aid and Obamabot thing. Deal?

It is possible that my comment was satire. I'll leave it up to you to decide what's what ;)