Dear Senator

I'm writing to express my exasperation with the Democratic leadership on Telecom Immunity as it relates to NSA wiretapping of US citizens.

According to The Hill

“Congressional Republicans are reviewing a Democratic proposal to break the logjam on electronic-surveillance legislation by allowing federal district courts to determine whether telephone companies seeking legal immunity received orders from the Bush administration to wiretap people’s phones.”

I realize that negotiations are still ongoing and that nothing is final – but for some reason news on this issue always seems to come in the middle of the night on a Friday.

As it stands now, it appears that the only public line of inquiry into the wiretapping program lies in the civil suits pending against the telecoms. If immunity is granted – these cases will cease and the public will be left in the dark about what happened.

Americans deserve better than that.

The idea that Congress would sidestep the discussion of immunity by allowing a court to say the telecoms had “received orders” is a stunning abdication of Congressional oversight. It isn’t a question of whether or not orders were given, but ‘*what* orders were given. More to the point: were the orders legal or not?

It doesn’t seem likely that Congress will seek answers to these questions, but they surely shouldn’t preempt court proceedings that could. As your colleagues, Sens. Dodd and Feingold have already pointed out, “existing law already immunizes telephone companies that respond in good faith to a government request, as long as that request meets certain clearly spelled-out statutory requirements.”

If they’ve done nothing wrong – they are already immune. If they have stepped over the line – we should find out where they’ve transgressed before we immunize them. In my view, civil damages against the telecoms are beside the point. It’s more important to find out what has been happening.

I know you have previously voted in favor of granting immunity to the telecom industry and while I’m disappointed – I’m more than curious to have the pro-immunity position explained to me in an intelligent fashion. The only statements that appear in news reports seem little more than transparent attempts to frighten the public. “Time is running out!” we are told. “We’ll be less safe,” and all manner of foolishness. For the sake of honest debate, separate surveillance from immunity. If there is a good reason for immunity – a public benefit – let someone explain it to the public.

The usual fear-mongering just serves to calcify the public’s skepticism of what their government has to say.

Tell us why immunity is necessary – in the full light of day. If that can’t be done – than we will all have learned something from this discussion.

Thank you.