Why would the Administration oppose a judicial determination of whether the companies already have immunity? There are at least three explanations:
First, the President knows that it was the Administration’s incompetence in failing to follow the procedures in the statute that prevented immunity from being conveyed – that’s one possibility. They simply didn't do it right. Second, the Administration’s legal argument that the surveillance requests were lawfully authorized was wrong; or third, public reports that the surveillance activities undertaken by the companies went far beyond anything about which any Member of Congress was notified, as is required by the law.
None of these alternatives is attractive but they clearly demonstrate why the Administration’s insistence that Congress provide retroactive immunity has never been about national security or about concerns for the companies; it has always been about protecting the Administration.
-- Speaker Nancy Pelosi
On the political front, there is various news to report. First and foremost, the House Democrats actually stood up to the President, getting many of the Blue Dogs in line in the process -- talk about killing two birds with one stone. Showing part of the point of having two branches of Congress, they rejected the amnesty for telecoms (but the most serious flaw) supported by the "bipartisan" Senate side (Republicans and Blue Dogs, thus the quotes are well placed), while getting many of their own blue dogs in line as well. Yes, Virginia, it is possible to do both of these things. The bill either will die in conference or be vetoed, unless the House Dems cave, which is perfectly fine.
The status quo ante works except perhaps the need to tweak things for foreign-to-foreign communication that passes through U.S. routers somehow. Note that the old rule was FISA, a law that (ahem) various conservatives thought outrageous, particularly when Clinton was in charge. Likewise, who would be surprised that after all this blather, the telecoms actually win in court? The House might actually help this -- its provision includes a nifty measure that gets around the blatantly overused "states secrets privilege" to provide the companies means to submit evidence key to their defense. This measure, as well as perhaps pressure from constituents (a special election and primary battle gave a hint of where the blind is blowing), helped many Blue Dogs see the light.
Glen Greenwald and others have the coverage -- he was downright gleeful yesterday, especially since he got a chance to stick his tongue out at critics on the Right. I caught a bit of the floor debate and can only share his disgust at the other side. From claims the non-profits supporting the litigation against the telecoms will somehow get rich from the litigation to bashing concerns about privacy that their side fairly recently was rather worried about to expecting us to trust claims from loyal Bushies that we need to give in to them yet again to stay safe. I have simple disdain for these people.
As with the Hillary/Barack stuff, this will be interpreted by stuff neutrally. Sorry no. I have disgust for one side in general. It's not just some "pox on both your houses" stuff. The whole thing is uneven. Media Matters had a good column yesterday on how only Hillary Clinton is being called on for not submitting her tax records when in fact McCain did not as well. Given his sudden support of Bush's tax cuts, and how they will help him personally (the column also compares treatment of McCain and Edwards per the first John's "cabin" barbecue), this is useful information. To be fair, however, when TPM raised the tax issue, it did not (to my knowledge) point out McCain. So, blame might be passed around.
Anyway, the House vote suggests the "oh no, the all powerful other side is attacking us, so we have to be very very careful, even if we don't really like it" pussy sentiment we see too often these days is not the only way to go. We did see some of that even there -- even while supporting a bill particularly notable for limits on executive power, immunity and guards of privacy, many members lead with assurance that they too knew the world is a scary place, and they too were tough on defense. It was like liberty and such were important, sure, but you know, sort of secondary. I note, especially given the importance of letting the courts decide the telecoms liability, "establish justice" comes first in the Preamble of the Constitution. Still, I commend them for mentioning it.
The pussy issue comes to play with the latest "oh no" moment involving Obama, namely the fact his minister said some crude things. This has some cachet since McCain got in trouble for seeking support from a bigot member of the clergy, eventually saying that he doesn't agree with all the guy says -- a somewhat lukewarm reply overall. The core problem with the sermon is that the minister bashed America, basically for its treatment of blacks. TPM readers had some good replies, including one Orthodox Jew who noted that his rabbi sometimes says offensive things, but selective comments doesn't make him resign in protest. American Catholics, given some of the more distasteful aspects of that faith (e.g., homosexual behavior is a sin), probably can relate. This includes use of hyperbole and intemperate speech, often including at heart true things like how America treated blacks.
But, we do tend not to be totally honest when it comes to religious matters. If we were really honest, we would realize that quite a few of the beliefs -- not just of "them" -- of our fellow citizens are in some way suspect. We can't bash religion (this includes fair criticism in the eyes of too many), can we? Sometimes, things are said in sermons and so forth that are wrong and in fact offensive. The same can be said about friends and family members. It is mightily selective to sudden shudder in horror when we learn that Obama's minister is part of this mix, especially given we know by his acts and rhetoric that Obama does not share the targeted comments. Grow up!
[Obama responds here. Note some of the "oh no!" comments. Those concerned about how he denounced those that "disparaged" the country have a point, of piece of my concerns that he is too concerned about being a unity candidate. It is quite acceptable to criticize the country, including quite strongly, when it fails us. This is not treasonous in any respect. But, playing nice is politically necessary, and his desire to change things is pretty telling. The Hebrews 12:1 cite by a comment is priceless, btw.]
The hope is that Obama is the sort of candidate that can ride past these attacks and let his words and deeds convince the electorate to provide him a majority of the electoral votes later this year. And, not let fear drive him to except the other side's frames and lead him to compromise too much in the process.