FISA is a big deal. There's no reason at all to grant immunity. If there is to be clemency to the CEOs who caved under pressure from the White House, it should be up to juries and the legal system to mete out fair justice.

If Obama is elected POTUS, he can grant clemency, pardons, etc., as he sees fit. If he doesn't get elected and immunity is granted, then the right wing will have even more reasons to continue to tramp on the Bill of Rights.

After the July 4th recess, Senator Obama needs to join his Senate counterparts in striking out the language granting immunity to AT&T.

If the current occupant of the White House chooses to use one of his signing statements to circumvent the law and give his cronies cover, then it will be up to the next Congress, regardless of who is in office, to finally put an end to the sordid mess of the past eight years.

If you read the bill it only gave immunity from civil suits to the telephone companies and only in the case were they had documented requests from the government.

They are still subject to legal prosecution for breaking the law.

No they aren't. Criminally prosecuting the telecoms for "breaking the law" would be what is known as entrapment. You or I could argue their case in court and win that one.

You may be right, but the fact is that the bill does not include immunity for criminal prosecution....The fact that a government official sends something in writing to someone that instructs them to break the law is not entrapment.....

Actually, that is pretty much the textbook definition of entrapment - the government taking actions which encourage someone to take actions they otherwise would not have taken.

The telecoms didn't show up on DOJ's door with reams of print outs and jump drives of data uninvited. The government asked them for help and the AG - the chief law enforcement officer of the US - assured them it was all right. If that wouldn't be considered entrapment, then nothing is entrapment.

Entrapment by Estoppel.

The defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official." United States v. Howell

There is the further issue of the phone companies having gotten their own legal opinions. If Karl Rove called and said "Give us this data....fer sure it is legal" the phone company may have taken his word for it or they may have consulted their own attorneys and gotten back advise that agreed or disagreed.

So the defense depends on the defendant being reasonably assured that it was legal.

In any case, the FISA bill did not grant immunity from anything except civil suit.