Sen. Dodd has a post up at HuffPo on FISA:

Most agree that this law needs to be modernized, as it has been many times over the years. But this time, the president is asking Congress to do something much more: to shield the telecoms from any judicial review of their actions. He wants Congress to declare spying without a warrant both constitutional and necessary to defend this country.

It is neither.

That is why I have done everything I can to stop retroactive immunity from being included in the FISA bill. As written, this bill does not say, "Trust the American people." It does not say, "Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions" about what happened at the telecoms. Rather, retroactive immunity sends this message:

"Trust me" -- a message that comes straight from the mouth of President Bush. I would never take "trust me" for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a president on Mount Rushmore.

The work to stop this terrible bill is overwhelming, and I know we could lose.

But process-wise, there's been great progress. The issues with FISA are dense (history of why Congress first passed the act/the concept of civil vs. criminal telecom immunity/exclusivity precedent/etc.). Five years ago, would 20,000 activists organize on a politician's website in protest? Would any conversations between activists, online or off, even broach the subject?

There's still time to tell our elected officials not to cave. Blue America has tools, and Christy Hardin Smith writes up the details.

It used to be harder for the average citizen to engage in politics - reading news on specific issues and checking the positions of their representatives pre-internet was time consuming. Advocacy campaigns too-often relied on more heated, visceral issues to engage people.

Even just a few years ago, activism around an issue as weedy as FISA wouldn't stand a chance. And we're certainly not quite where we need to be yet. But it's a thrill watching so many people discuss and organize around a fundamental constitutional issue.

There's more...

As I wrote on Friday, Barack Obama's statement on the FISA "compromise" included this passage:

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Now it's time to hold him to it. Great to see MoveOn doing its part (h/t HuffPo):

Dear MoveOn member,

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation." Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=758& ;tg=479

These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.

There's more at MoveOn.org.

There's more...

I have voted for the Democratic Party every election since 1972. I have also been a full-time organizer for the United Farm Workers union and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. I have a long history as a progressive activist.

Yet I disagree with virtually the entire netroots in the issue of FISA and telecom immunity. Let me state my position and please tell me why  you disagree.

There's more...

If House Republicans were hoping to sway enough Democrats to their side on the surveillance bill with their super seeeecret session yesterday, looks like it didn't work.

Paul Kiel has the good news:

The House Dem leadership's surveillance bill just cleared the House by a vote of 213-197 with 1 vote of present. 12 Dems crossed the aisle to vote against it.

The bill has stricter privacy safeguards than the Senate's version -- and of course does not contain a provision granting retroactive immunity for the telecoms' participation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Roll call is HERE.

Could it be that House Democrats are learning that, as dday puts it, "there remains no downside to opposing Bush?" Now if only the senate would learn the same lesson.

Next up is reconciliation with the senate bill. Sen. Harry Reid is optimistic but Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Sen. Jay Rockefeller is being somewhat coy on telecom immunity.

"I continue to believe that the Senate FISA bill can be made even better through a limited number of changes, such as a shorter sunset, strengthened exclusivity, and improved accountability - modifications that in no way inhibit the collection authorities needed by the Intelligence Community.

"As soon as the House sends us this new bill, we will once again roll up our sleeves and get back to work on a final compromise that the House, Senate and White House can support."

Yes, Senator, we know Bush won't sign a bill without immunity but it doesn't mean you send one to him.

Update [2008-3-14 15:29:32 by Todd Beeton]:What Glenn said:

"It's hard not to believe that there's not at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them. Quite the opposite: an outspoken opponent of telecom amnesty, warrantless eavesdropping and the Iraq War was just elected to the House from Denny Hastert's bright red district, and before that, Donna Edwards ousted long-time incumbent Al Wynn by accusing him of being excessively complicit with the Bush agenda.

There's more...

Last week, I sent off standardized email messages regarding my opposition to telecom immunity.  Seeing that my representatives in Washington are Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Sen. Johnny Isakson, and Cong. Phil Gingrey, you can imagine what good my efforts were.  Still, there is something to be gained by letting them know that a few of their constituents are not brainwashed right-wing zombies.  

Be that as it may, I wanted to share with you the response I received from Congressman Gingrey's office.  Mind you, the specific issue raised was telecom immunity.

There's more...