Yes it is in the best interests of the US to grant immunity. Right or wrong, when the executive branch makes their best interpretation of the law they need to have the cooperation of individuals, groups, businesses and other organizations to successfully implement the law. Once the executive branch has determined policy based on the law it should not be a responsibility of all those who may have to assist in some way to develop their own legal basis. To require everyone to do so would effectively stop law enforcement. Additionally, to expect those who might have to assist to develop a legal basis for their actions and to hold them both criminally and civilly liable for the future rulings on the areas of that law which are being debated will effectively prevent any cooperation by individuals, groups, businesses and organizations. This would stop investigations and put the US under greater risk. Those who in good faith cooperate with the federal government must be held harmless from liability both criminal and civil or the government will not be able to effectively enforce the law. So, yes it is in the best interests of the US to grant immunity.

Remind your Senators and Representatives of their oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Congressional Directory:
http://tinyurl.com/3a65z

Reid needs to go. He's the biggest punk in Washington.

It's blatantly against Constitutional law to grant retroactive blanket immunity to any individual, or group of persons, or corporations for illegal activities.
The telecoms breached their own privacy contracts with their customers, and violated the 4th Ammendment by allowing wiretapping of private phones without a warrant or evidence of probable cause.
That the Bush administration began their illegal surveillance upon Americans as early as Feb., 2001, not in the aftermath of 9/11 means this is not a security measure or designed to protect us from terrorists, but an intent to compile information (phone records, emails, internet usage, financial and medical records) upon law-abiding citizens, unless there was "probable cause" to investigate everyone in the U.S.
With their wiretapping in place, despite numerous memos from FBI field offices about the suspicious activities of the hijackers, many credible warnings from foreign and domestic agencies and offices about an eminent attack, why could the government not prevent what took place on 9/11?
We're supposedly a free republic and a democracy, yet anyone now can be labelled an "enemy combatant," detained indefinately and subjected to torture, without a trial, facts or evidence, nor access to legal counsel. The U.S. is becoming more like the old Soviet Union, and our government more like the KGB!
The telecoms were greedy, and saw the lucrative government contracts, and willingly broke the law for their own profit. Having in-house well-paid attorneys, they knew or should have known the warrantless wiretapping is illegal.
The reason Bush & Cheney are so hell-bent on granting the telecoms immunity is not to save them from frivolous lawsuits, but to save the CEO's of those telecoms from ever having to testify or present evidence about the extent of the illegal surveillance, WHO and when it was ordered and cover up crimes of this administration.
I can't imagine a president, who says everything is about making us safe and more secure, would sacrifice and jeopardize our safety by vetoing a bill that doesn't protect the telecom industry.

Feingold and Dodd are the two with the courage and intelligence to lead. Every time I see Reid and Pelosi, I see the face of Dubya superimposed. Reid and Pelosi really do have to go. I am embarrassed by their lack of leadership and representation of the American people. Harry! Nancy! Just do it! Say goodbye! Let someone do the job who WILL do the job.

BREAKING NEWS!

There IS hope! From Greenwald at Salon:

UPDATE V: There was some significant, and apparently unexpected, obstructionism on the part of Republicans this afternoon, whereby they blocked votes on any of the pending amendments and then filed a Motion for Cloture (i.e., to force a vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee bill as is), the vote on which will occur on Monday at 4:30 p.m. Supposedly, the obstructionism angered Reid and other Democrats and now Reid will not only support Dodd's filibuster but urge his caucus to do so as well.

I'm still trying to understand exactly what occurred procedurally and what the implications are, but for now, both Marcy Wheeler and McJoan have good explanations. The essence is that 36 Democrats already voted against the SIC bill (and in favor of the Judiciary Committee bill). To sustain a filibuster, they need 41 Senators who refuse to vote for cloture -- meaning they would need to convert 3 Democrats who voted for the SIC bill, plus Obama and Clinton (who are scheduled to be in DC on Monday for the State of the Union address). This is where Obama and Clinton's leadership could really make a genuine difference. More on this later.

UPDATE VI: Tim Tagaris, recently of the Dodd campaign, has much more analysis and information about what occurred today.

When the Rethugs controlled the Senate and played their dirty tricks, like excluding the Democrats from committee meetings, we saw Harry's frustration as he battled with the other side. Now that the Dems have the majority Harry is caving.

Why would any Dem want to grant immunity to the Bush Administration's partners in crime? And, why Harry Reid? Why has he flip-flopped and now sanctions what he fought for so many years? And, for that matter, why are he and Pelosi afraid to take on the White House?

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark. I'm sorry to say it, but Harry Reid needs to go. He can make his exit right along with Nancy Pelosi. They've betrayed our trust.

What the hell - Reid is going to make a Democrat stand and talk but he doesn't make the Republicans who have for a year blocked every meaningful piece of legislation the Democrats proposed and would have gotten a majority of votes?

This may be the straw that broke my Democratic back - I may have to re-register as an independent.

Fuck calling, writing, emailing, signing petitioning; fuck all that shit - no matter how many signatures or calls or emails they get they do what they want.

I have begged, badgered, pleaded with them all and nothing. They think because we are so dissatisfied with Bush that all they have to do is hold on and don't do anything stupid and they may get back a veto proof majority.

Well Fuck you Congress - fuck you Democrats, there is only one way you could lose my vote and and that is to be political when it comes to our country and our Constitution. Sorry but after Kucinich leaving the race, I am in no mood for political positioning from my party.

I am so not happy.

I have yet to be enlightened to why this requires a filibuster. This ammendment is so flawed that it does not seem to lend itself to being righteously supported. What is the other side saying that is so powerful that it is going to require filibuster to keep it from passing. If anyone know will they please reply to this post and I will check back to see what you have to say.

Hillary should go in and speak for the old-fashioned filibuster. That would definitely give her campaign stronger legs to stand on. The dems would eat it up, and it would show that she is neither a republican in democrats clothing nor too despised by the electorate. This would make everyone love her, and give a huge boost to the issue as well.

Let all be on notice: If you are asked by a superior or federal agency to act in a way that is against the Constitution of the United
States, you may be subject to criminal and civil prosecution.

"I did it because they told me to" has long ago lost its power as a defense.

clinton listened in on conversations all through his adm. one being princess Di where was the outrage then.

Feingold for Majority Leader!

The issue is that the FISA review in and of itself is not legitimate, because we know Bush was using it wrongly before the time he's agreed any review.

dems need to put up a candidate against Reid in his homestate. He needs to seek medical help after rolling over and over this last 2 yrs.