Clarity at Last, But Not Soon Enough?

It may be too little too late, but it seems like a few people are starting to catch on to the real dynamics of the telecom immunity debate. We talked about it a couple of weeks ago, but now some of the big boys are getting into the act. Yesterday, The Washington Post spelled out some of the details, although in a very weird construction:

President Bush said last week that telecommunications companies that helped government wiretapping efforts need protection from "class-action plaintiff attorneys" who see a "financial gravy train" ahead. Democrats and privacy groups responded by accusing the Bush administration of trying to shut down the lawsuits to hide evidence of illegal acts.

But in the bitter Washington dispute over whether to give the companies legal immunity, there is one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward, sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration's surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time.

I can't say I understand why there's a but at the beginning of the second paragraph. Is there a contradiction between the idea that the Bushies are "trying to shut down the lawsuits to hide evidence of illegal acts" and "if the lawsuits go forward, sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration's surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time"? That sounds like two sides of the same coin, to me.

Today in the Post, Dan Froomkin went into a fair amount of detail on the topic and pretty much explains anything we want to know. He also links to Kevin Drum, who pointed out that the telecoms themselves don't seem too worried about all this because they're almost certainly indemnified against damages by the government who enlisted them to perform the surveillance in the first place. Just more evidence adding to the Bush adminstration's true motive of cover up, preventing us from trying to open strange doors that we'll never close again. Scary monsters, indeed.

And speaking for the people who may (or may not) have been surveilled, Studs Terkel, et al., wrote in the Chicago Tribune yesterday to explain why they filed a telecom lawsuit in the first place. They provide a good explanation, but it all adds up to this:

Amnesty not only lets the companies off the hook without answering any questions, it assures that the American people will never learn about the breadth and extent of the lawless program. Some seem to suggest that we should not have our day in court because a select few members of Congress have been able to review documents about the spy program operated by the White House. The judgment of a few Washington insiders is not a substitute for the careful scrutiny of a federal court.

Congress is supposed to act to protect the rights of American citizens, not sacrifice those rights to large corporate entities. The House and Senate should resist the bullying tactics of the Bush White House and ensure that we have our day in court to vindicate our rights and reveal any illegality engaged in by the telecoms. We need to know about the Bush White House's secret program.

So all of this must mean that the Democrats have all the more reason to prevent telecom immunity, right? Well, it might, if we weren't actually talking about the Democrats. But since we are talking about the Democrats, clearly that's not the case. In fact, just like we've known in our hearts (or in the pits of our stomachs) all along, they've just been waiting for the right moment to cave. It had to come. It was never realistic to believe that the opposition party would ever actually stand up to George W. Bush.