One of the most divisive issues between Democrats and Republicans the last few months has been over the immunity provision in the FISA bill which has yet to be passed. Democrats have been accepting their constituents ‘knee-jerk” reaction that telecom companies broke the law when aiding in the foreign surveillance and should therefore be held liable via lawsuits. Republicans have been stating that the telecom companies operated under request from the National Security Agency and other such federal agencies, and did so in good faith, therefore they should not be held financially liable.

It appears however it is not only those on the right who believe immunity is essential to any new FISA bill, as we find this week that Barack Obama’s own national-security advisor has announced his strong beliefs telecoms should be granted immunity.

There is this great debate over whether or not the telecom companies should in fact be given immunity for their agreement to provide support and cooperate with the government after 9/11. I do believe strongly that they should be granted that immunity, because they were told to do so by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context, and so I think that’s important. And I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that’s the right thing to do. I do believe the Senate version of the FISA bill addresses the issues appropriately. [Director of National Intelligence] Mike McConnell, I think, did a very good job trying to articulate the distinctions between the old FISA law, the FISA understanding under the Protect America Act, and then the House and Senate versions.

Ironically it is the same people who claim President Bushes aides should not have the right to questions Congress’ subpoena power over them, who now claim AT&T and others should have questioned legal requests from the National Security Agency.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Constitution, Dumb Dems, Election 2008, Features, Politics, Terrorism