FISA Compromise Goes Forward

I just got an email from a local liberal activist imploring me to call Rep. Cooper and ask him to oppose the compromised FISA bill. Me thinks that won't happen, considering Rep. Cooper has supported the original version of the Administration's bill all along, and a member of his staff confirms to me that he is likely to support this compromised measure.

Quite frankly, and I know this makes me a bad little liberal, I still don't get the argument by some against immunity. There seem to be two thoughts.

First, if we the people punish them financially, it will lesson the chance of them doing something like this in the future. This assumes A) that there is a strong enough case against them and B) a judge (and appellate judge) would uphold a decision which financially cripples a company. The most likely result would be a coupon for a free months service...or something like that, while a few lawyers make a shit-ton of money in the process.

Second, some are under the impression that if the trial goes forward, the executives would have to testify under oath and rat out the Bush administration. This is flawed, in my estimation, because the deals between the two were classified and therefore they wouldn't be able to talk about it in an open, civilian court.

If we want them to testify, subpoena them (in a closed committee if necessary) and get the information in Congress, where it matters. My problem is not with the companies who cooperated with the government, rather, my problem is with the government that compelled them to violate the law it was sworn to uphold.

Update:

The House voted in favor of changes to the FISA law which included Telecom immunity. Reps. Cooper, Lincoln Davis, Gordon, and Tanner voted in favor of the new bill, while Rep. Cohen remained the only Tennessee Democrat to oppose the measure.