This is less about immunity and more about presidential power and prestige. I have no doubt that one of the promises made by the bush administration to the telecoms was that they would never be prosecuted. By delivering on this pledge, the bush administration sets the stage for more "requests" from the government to private businesses that no doubt would ignore federal law, ethics, and the constitution. With the immunity in hand for this instance, it sets a precedence that the executive branch is free to ignore any law it chooses because "it is convenient." Our constitutional rights? Gone because they were "too much of a hassle and impeded investigations." such will be the end result if Congress refuses to make BOTH the businesses involved and the presidency responsible for its actions. Of course, they're too busy wasting our time with steroids rather than stopping bush from spraying lighter fluid on our bill of rights. The republicans actions and any democrats who support them, in this matter, are a slap in the face to every citizen in this country. No more are we the home of the free but rather a nation of sheep radio tagged and herded by our minders.

ANYONE who voted for this bill in the Senate should be "OUTED" to their constitutents, who are the marshallows who caved in? I am really appalled and although I am a Verizon customer, I am going to call them tomorrow and cancel my phone. It was ILLEGALLY done in the first place!!!

Just bushies way of getting away with doing everything he has done illegally since he first stole the first election. He should be indicted for his contempt of the american people not rewarded by congress. And yes those that voted in favor of this bill will and should be replaced at the next election, starting with ms. peloski and working our way right through the ranks. I use to be proud to be an american and now i feel like a jew in the prison camps of germany.

I would support any presidential candidate who promised to roll back executive privilege and rebalance our lost 'checks and balances.' Unfortunately it seems that candidates are drawn to the infinite power of the office and I doubt that any of our current group - Obama included - would willingly reverse our move towards an imperial presidency. (In fact if Obama did try to reduce the role of the office he would be criticized for being a weak president.) We have a misguided idea that 'leadership' assumes that decisions must be made by a single man (or possibly woman) -- the lonely corner (or oval) office that leadership gurus have written about for years. This business model for governance is not only wrong but dangerous. And its flaws have been demonstrated in the last 8 years, as we have watched bad policy made by a tiny group of presidential insiders with no meaningful opposition. I hold media partly responsible for this -- it's so much more photogenic to have a single person talking into a camera about his vision and decisions than to watch the messy and sometimes tedious process of debate and discussion by a committee or the full Congress.

squire_bass:

ANYONE who voted for this bill in the Senate should be "OUTED" to their constitutents, who are the marshallows who caved in?

To what end? So that the party that supports privacy rights will be able to elect someone? Which party would that be?

"To what end? So that the party that supports privacy rights will be able to elect someone? Which party would that be?"

One party had 100% of its Senate members vote for telecom immunity. One party had 61% of its Senate members vote against telecom immunity. Do I need to explain which party is which?